eens erent 
ἀν gterig Ν 
a ere ee Schacter 
ΝΣ " Soe giteg urmeartsae τὰ 


maaan ae or Sate 
sonal Sv 
Shore we: 


” 
guerre 
ΤΩΣ 
μὰ 


rove δε 
ae 


ayers 
Cre 


ecm ote 
Se ae 


PT comands 
2 Pee 


RY OF ΡΗΙΝῸ 
<a ἔξ) 
SEP ZU 1429 


Ἄ 
" ἷς 
COL ogicaL SENS 


Division 


Section 


ἜΝ 
een te 


i ‘ 
aban te Vil ΠῚ by 
mt i ee i ἢ 
ΝΥ ΠΟῪ ἢ 
' + ἊΝ 


- 


; ee 
ah Ue A) 
Ὁ i 7 


j 


Aye: aol ᾿ ; ἣν 


} 
Ae ιν 7 


igi t= 


ARS ἐλ. 


Α 


COMMENTARY 


THE COLOSSIANS, 


Uniform with this Volume, price 14s. cloth, 


A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE 


EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS. 


By JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Biblical Literature to the United Presbyterian Church. 


NS: 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE GREEK TEXT 


OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO 


THE COLOSSIANS. 


va 
JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 


NEW YORK: 
ROBERT CARTER AND BROTHERS, 
285 BROADWAY. 


1856. 


ΠΑΥΛΟΣ--μέγας τῆς ἀληθείας re ἀγωνιστῆς καὶ διδάσκαλος.-- ῬΗΓΌΡΙΟΣ 
ὁ Θεόλογος. 


Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras 
flammas loquitur.—Erasmus, Annot. ad Colos. iv. 16. 


Omnis bonus Theologus et fidelis interpres doctrinae coelestis, necessario esse 
debet, primum grammaticus, deinde dialecticus, denique testis. —-MELANCTHON. 


PREFACE. 


Tus volume has been composed on the same principles 
as those which guided me in my previous Commentary on 
the Epistle to the Ephesians. My aim has again been to trace 
and illustrate the thoughts of the inspired writer; to arrive 
at a knowledge of the truths which he has communicated, by 
an analysis of the words which he has employed. I have 
used every means in my power to ascertain the mind of the 
Spirit; and my eye being single, if I have not enjoyed ful- 
ness of light, my hope is that some at least of its beams have 
been diffused over my pages. As the purity of exegesis 
depends on the soundness of grammatical investigation, I 
have spared no pains in the prior process, so that I might 
arrive at a satisfactory result. One may, indeed, compile a 
series of grammatical annotations without intruding far into 
the province of exegesis, but it is impossible to write an 
exegetical commentary without basing it on a thorough 
grammatical inquiry. The foundation must be of sufficient 
depth and breadth to support the structure. Nay, after the 
expositor has discovered what meaning the word or clause 
may bear by itself, and as the Grammar or Lexicon may 
warrant, he has then to determine how far the connection 


v1 PREFACE. 


and development of ideas may modify the possible significa- 
tion, and finally determine the actual or genuine sense.’ For 
the only true sense is that which the author intended his 
words should bear. Now there is ample wealth of gram- 
matical assistance. Apart from formal grammatical trea- 
tises and dictionaries, one might almost compile a Gram- 
mar and Lexicon from such works as Schweighiuser on 
Herodotus, Stallbaum on Plato, Poppo on Thucydides, Kiihner 
on Xenophon, and other productions of similar scholarship. 
Still, when all this labour has been gone through, the higher 
art of the exeget must be brought into requisition. The 
dry bones must not only be knitted, but they must live. 
Successful exposition demands, on the part of its writer, such 
a psychological oneness with the author expounded, as that 
his spirit is felt, his modes of conception mastered, and his 
style of presenting consecutive thought penetrated and 
realized. And there is need, too, of that Divine illumi- 
nation which the “Interpreter, one among a thousand,” so 


rejoices to confer on him who works in the spirit of the 


1 In making these remarks, I refer to, but certainly find no fault with, the following 
two treatises, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the 
Galatians, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Ephesians, by C. J. Ellicott, M.A., Rector of Pilton, Rutland, and late Fellow of 
St. John’s College, Cambridge. London, 1854-55. Mr. Ellicott is an excellent Greek 
scholar, but in many of his corrections of myself, and on points of Greek Grammar too, 
I cannot acquiesce, though in a few I admit his modifications. I hope he is aware, at 
the same time, that in Scotland every Greek scholar is and must be self-taught, since 
at our northern Universities we get little Latin and less Greek, and enjoy no leisurely 
Fellowships. Yet with all the necessary apparatus of German scholarship in our 
hands, why should we really be behind England, save in the privilege of early and 
minute tuition? Indeed, English scholarship, in two of its latest efforts in this 
direction, does but give an English dress to continental erudition. Jelf has not 
absorbed the individuality of Kiihner in his improved translation. Liddell and Scott 
have modestly avowed the sources out of which, to a great extent, their very useful 
Lexicon has been wrought out. However, we wait hopefully for the New Testament 
of Tregelles, and for the Lexicon believed to be in preparation by the Master of 
Balliol. Mr. Ellicott has unconsciously misnamed our last work, in a point of view 
against which we protested in our preface, and somewhat extraordinarily and in 
opposition to what Prof. John Brown himself has said, he hastily ascribes his Ex- 
position of Galatians to a collegiate authorship. 


PREFACE. vil 


prayer— Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold won- 
drous things out of thy law.” May I venture to hope that, 
to some extent, I have come up to my own theory? 

What others have written before me on the epistle I have 
carefully studied. Neither ancient nor modern commentators 
in any language have been neglected. But I have not been 
so lavish, as on my last appearance, in the citation of names, 
except in cases of momentous difficulty, or where some 
peculiar interpretation has been adduced. Names, I well 
know, are not authorities; and such a complete enumeration 
of them as I attempted has, I find, been sometimes mis- 
understood in its principle, and sometimes misrepresented 
in its purpose. 

If my labours shall contribute to a clearer understanding 
of this portion of the New Testament, I shall be amply 
rewarded. I believe that the writings of the apostle, 
whatever their immediate occasion and primary purpose, 
were intended to be of permanent and universal utility; and 
that the purity and prosperity of the church of Christ are inti- 
mately bound up with an accurate knowledge of, and a solid 
faith in, the Pauline theology. I dare not, therefore, in the 
spirit of modern rationalism, say in one breath what the 
apostle means, and then say, in another breath, that such 
an acknowledged meaning, though fitted for the meridian of 
the first century, is not equally fitted for that of the nine- 
teenth; but must be modified and softened down, according 
to each one’s predilections and views. The privilege of 
individual deduction from inspired statement is not questioned 
—the attempt to glean and gather general principles from 
counsels and descriptions of a temporary and special phasis 
is not disallowed; but this procedure is totally different from 
that ingenious rationalism which contrives to explain away 
those distinctive truths which an honest interpretation of the 
apostle’s language admits, that he actually loved and taught. 


ὙΠ PREFACE. 


I have still to bespeak indulgence, on account of the con- 
tinuous and absorbing duties of a numerous city charge; and 
for a careful revisal of the sheets, and the compilation of 
the useful index which accompanies this volume, I am in- 
debted to my esteemed friend, the Rev. John Russell, Buch- 
lyvie, Stirlingshire. 


13 LANSDOWNE CRESCENT, GLASGOW, 
October, 1855. 


THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, 


I.—COLOSSE, LAODICEA, AND HIERAPOLIS. 


CoLOSssE was a city of the greater Phrygia, or that province 
which, under Constantius, was called Phrygia Pacatiana, and 
was situated on the river Lycus, about five furlongs above the 
point where it joins the Maeander. ‘The spelling of the name 
has been disputed. The common appellation, Κολοσσαί, has, 
in the inscription of the epistle, the support of Codices D, E, F, 
G, the Vulgate, and several of the Fathers, among whom are 
the Greek Chrysostom and Theophylact, and the Latin Tertul- 
lian and Ambrosiaster. Some ancient coins exhibit the same 
spelling,’ and it occurs also in Herodotus, Xenophon,? Strabo,* 
Diodorus Siculus,’ and Pliny. It appears to be the correct 
and original form of the word. On the other hand, Ἰζολασσαί 
has the high authority of A, B, C, of the Syriac and Coptic 
Versions, and not a few of the Fathers and classical writers.’ 
Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt it. This form, therefore, 
was also acurrent one. It seems to have been in common 
use among the people, and was probably the spelling em- 
ployed by the apostle himself. Among the subscriptions to 
the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, held m A.p. 451, occurs 
that of the metropolitan of Laodicea, who, speaking of the 
bishops under him, mentions—Ezipaviov πόλεως Koddoowr. 

The city was of some note in its early days. Herodotus calls 


1 Eckhel, Doctr. Numis. iii. p. 147, who cites the terms Κολοσσηνοί and δήμος Ko- 
λοσσηνῶν. 2 vii. 30. 

° Anabasis, p. 6, ed. Hutchinson, Glasgow, 1817. 

4 Geographia, vol. ii. p. 580, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847. 

5 Histor. vol. ii. p. 888, ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1829. 5. Hist. Nat. 1—32. 

7 Tt stands as a various reading in Xenophon and Herodotus, and also in Pol- 
yaenus, viii. 16. 

b 


x THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


it μεγάλη πόλις; and Xenophon bestows upon it the epithet 
εὐδαίμων. Strabo, however, while he classes Apameia and 
Laodicea among the greatest cities of Phrygia, ranks Colosse 
only among the πόλισματα, as if its ancient greatness had 
already been eclipsed by the prosperity of the neighbourmg 
towns. Ptolemy takes no notice of it. Laodicea and 
Hierapolis, mentioned in the second chapter of the epistle, 
were but a few miles from it, and all three in the year 60 
A.D., suffered terribly from an earthquake.’ Indeed, as Strabo 
observes, the whole district or valley of the Maeander was 


volcanic, and liable to earthquakes—cioacroe. 


In the middle ages, Colosse was known by the name of 
Chonae, as is stated by Theophylact? in the commencement 
of his commentary, and by the Byzantine Nicetas,® who, after 
his birthplace, surnamed himself Choniates. A village named 
Chonas still remains, and the ruins of the ancient city have 
been discovered and identified by the modern travellers, 
Hamilton and Arundel. The lofty range of mount Cadmus 
rises abruptly behind the village, presenting that remarkable 
phenomenon‘ which seems to have given its second name to 
the town, and was connected with one of its singular super- 
stitions. The legend is, that, during a period of sudden and 
resistless inundation, Michael, descending from heaven, opened 
a chasm, into which the waters at once disappeared, and the 
fact is, that a church was built in honour of the archangel, in 
which he received Divine honours. This subsequent idolatry 
affords a curious illustration of the tendency which, under the 
clause “ worshipping of angels,” the apostle formally notices 
and rebukes in the 18th verse of the second chapter of his 
epistle. 

The other towns mentioned in the epistle are Laodicea and 
Hierapolis. The former had often attached to it the appella- 
tion—1) ἐπὶ Λύκῳ, ΟΥ ἡ πρὸς TH AbKw—that is, “ Laodicea on 
the Lycus,” to distinguish it from other towns of similar name, 

1 The statement of Orosius on this subject must not be taken as correct in all points. 
Orosius, Hist. vii. 7. Winer, sub voce. Tacitus, Annal. xiv. 27. Wieseler, Chronol. 
455. 

2 πόλις φρυγίας αἱ Κολοσσαὶ αἱ νῦν λεγόμεναι, Χῶναι. 

3 Xdvas .. . πάλαι τὰς Κολασσάς. Chron. p. 230, Bonn. 


* Herodotus, Joc. cit. 


LAODICEA AND HIERAPOLIS. X1 


one in the same region, another forming the port of Aleppo, 
and a third close to Mount Lebanon. Its original name was 
Diospolis, and it received its later designation from Laodice, 
the wife of Antiochus IL., by whom it was patronized and 
considerably enlarged. As the metropolis of the Greater 
Phrygia, it was a city of some size, splendour, and trade, 
covering several hills with its buildings, having a rich and 
active population within it, and a fertile country round about it, 
watered by the Lycus, and two other and smaller streams.’ But 
the scourge of the place was the frequency and severity of 
the earthquakes. On being devastated by the earthquake 
referred to, it soon rose to its former grandeur — propriis 
viribus revaluit ;? but after many a convulsion and overthrow, 
the place was at length abandoned. Its ruins attest its 
ancient grandeur. Remains of two theatres may yet be seen, 
with many of their marble seats; temples may be traced by 
their foundations; but of the architecture and ornaments of 
churches almost no trace can be found. ‘Vast silent walls,” 
about the purpose of which there is considerable doubt, are 
striking objects amidst the desolation. The Turks now call 
it Eski-hissa, or old castle, a translation of the common Greek 
term applied to old sites, Paleo-castro.* 

East of Colosse, and to the north of Laodicea and 
visible from its theatre, lay Hierapolis. It was famous for 
its mineral springs, which produced beautiful stalactites, 
and all forms of encrustations, and for the mephitic va- 
pours which filled a cavern on the hill sidet These pecu- 
harities may have originated its sacred name. It has been 
visited and described by several travellers, such as Smith, 
Pococke, Chander, Arundell, Leake, and Fellows. The 
remains of three Christian churches are visible, and the theatre 
and gymnasium are prominent among the ruins. Fellows 


has the following entry in his Journal,’ pp. 288, 284 :—“ Up 


1 Strabo speaks of ἡ τῆς x¢e@ s ἀρετή, and adds also ray πολιτῶν τινὲς εὐσυχ- 
ἥσαντες, Xl. 8, 16. Rey. iii. 17. 

2 Tacitus, Annal. xiv. 27. 

3 Kitto’s Cyclop. sub voce. 

* Called the Plutoneum. Strabo, lib. xiii. Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 29. 

δ Journal written during an Excursion to Asia Minor, London, 1839. 


ΧΙ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


the valley towards the south-east stands Mount Cadmus, and I 
heard that at its foot, about twelve miles from Laodiceia, 
there were considerable ruins, probably of the ancient city of 
Colosse. Descending rapidly into the flat and swampy valley 
of the Lycus, we crosssd in a diagonal line to the city of 
Hierapolis, six or seven miles from Laodiceia. My attention 
had been attracted at twenty miles’ distance by the singular 
appearance of its hill, upon which there appeared to be 
perfectly white streams poured down its sides; and this 
peculiarity may have been the attraction which first led to the 
city being built there. ‘The waters, which rise in copious 
streams from several deep springs among the ruins, and are 
also to be found in small rivulets for twenty miles around, are 
tepid, and to appearance perfectly pure. ‘This pure and warm 
water is no sooner exposed to the air, than it rapidly deposits 
a pearly white substance upon the channel through which it 
flows, and on every blade of grass in its course; and thus, 
after filling its bed, it flows over, leaving a substance which I 
can only compare to the brain-coral, a kind of crust or feeble 
crystallization ; again it is flooded by a fresh stream, and again 
is formed another perfectly white coat. The streams of 
water, thus leaving a deposit by which they are choked up, 
and over which they again flow, have raised the whole surface 
of the ground fifteen or twenty feet, forming masses of this 
shelly stone in ridges, which impede the paths, as well as 
conceal and render it difficult to trace out the foundations of 
buildings. The deposit has the appearance of a salt, but it is 
tasteless, and to the touch is like the shell of the cuttle-fish. 
These streams have flowed on for ages, and the hills are coated 
over with their deposit of a filmy semi-transparent appearance, 
looking like half-melted snow suddenly frozen.” From this 
whiteness of the ‘southern and western declivitics of the 
rocky terrace on which the city stands, a whiteness consisting 
probably of a deposit of carbonate of lime, it is now called 
Pambuk-Kaleh, or Cotton Castle. 

The inhabitants of Phrygia boasted of a high antiquity, and 
the Egyptians confessed their own posteriority. Herodotus 
tells at length the absurd story of the experiment of King 
Psammetichus, by which was discovered the priority of the 


RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF PHRYGIA., xii 


Phrygian laneuage.’ It is certain that they were inclined to 
wild superstitions. ‘Their religious worship was a species of 
delirious fanaticism. The self-mutilated Corybantes were the 
priests of Cybele, who, under the sacred paroxysm cut and 
gashed themselves, as they reeled, whirled, and danced in 
frantic glee to the braying of horns and clashing of cymbals, 
while the forests and mountains echoed the wild clamour of 
their orgies. The national propensity of the Phrygians was 
towards the dark and mystical, and they were specially 
attracted to any mania or extravagance that claimed a near 
knowledge of, or a maddening fellowship with the spirit- 
world. Ravines and convulsions were the sure tokens to them 
of inspiration. Deficiency of intellectual culture left them the } 
more the creatures of whim and impulse, so that the errors | 
mentioned by the apostle in his letter to the Colossians, and | 
characterized as “intruding into those things he hath not 
seen, will-worship, and neglecting of the body,” were pecn- 
liarly fitted to such a temperament, and calculated to exert a 
strong fascination upon it. The knowledge of this correspon- | 
dence between the errors propounded and the eccentric | 
propensities of the people, must have deepened the fears and | 
anxieties of the apostle, and led to that stern and thorough | 
exposure which characterizes the second chapter of the epistle. 
We know that at a subsequent period similar delusions pre- 
vailed in the province. The reveries of Montanus originated 
there about the middle of the second century, and spread rapidly | 
and extensively. The leading features of Montanism were a | 
claim to ecstatic inspiration, the gift of prophecy, the adoption 
of a transcendental code of morality, and the exercise of an | 
austere δ΄ discipline. Its votaries were often named Kataphry- 
gians, from the region of their popularity. The heresiarch 
himself was born on the confines of Phrygia, and his first 
disciples, as might be expected, were natives of that country, 
nay, two of its towns were fondly supposed to be the New 
Jerusalem predicted in the Apocalypse. 


ee 


χὶν THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


II.—THE CHURCH IN COLOSSE. 


But who originated the Christian community at Colosse ? 
Was it the apostle himself, or some other missionary? ‘The 
question has not yet been answered beyond dispute. The 
early Greek commentator Theodoret held that the apostle 
planted the church, though he indicates that even in his day 
there was a diversity of opinion on the subject. In later 
times, Dr. Lardner has formally stated sixteen arguments in 
defence of his belief, that the author of the epistle was the 
founder of the church. Dr. Wiggers, in the Studien und 
Kritiken for 1838, has espoused the theory of Lardner, and 
it had been previously advocated by the reviewer of Junker’s 
Commentary, in the ninth volume of Rohr’s Avritiseher Predi- 
ger-Bibliothek. In express opposition to these views, Dr. 
Davidson has written at leneth with great candour and pre- 
cision.’ 

The arguments for and against the Pauline origin of the 
church are of two kinds—inferential and critical. 

1. It is stated in the Acts of the Apostles, xvi. 6, that Paul! 
and his companion “had gone throughout Phrygia,” and 
then, xvill. 23, that ‘he went over all the country of Galatia 
and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.” There 
arises a strong presumption from these accounts, that during 
this first or second visit the apostle must surely have reached 
Colosse. This is Theodoret’s argument—that as Colosse was 
in Phrygia, and Laodicea the capital of the provmce was 
in its vicinity, it could scarcely happen that the apostle should 
not visit both places. Dr. Lardner endorses this judgment, 
and says, “this argument alone appears to me to be con- 
clusive.” Now, it is beyond doubt that the apostle made 
extensive journeys in the province of Phrygia, but it 1s no- 
where stated that he was either in Colosse, or even near it. 
Jn the first instance referred to, the route was from Antioch to 
Syria, Cilicia, Derbe, Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas, 
and thence over to Europe. ‘The record of the tour is vague. 
True, indeed, Colosse lay on the great road from Iconium to 


' Introduction, vol. ii. p. 396, ἄς. 


JOURNEYS OF THE APOSTLE. XV 


Kphesus, but the apostle did not visit Ephesus till after his 
return from Europe, and then he sailed to it directly from the 
port of Cenchrea, and after a brief visit took shipping again 
for Cxsarea. The term Phrygia, as has been remarked by 
Conybeare and Howson (1. 291)—‘“ was merely a geogra- 
phical expression, denoting a debatable country of doubtful 
extent.” The journey performed in reaching Mysia, for the 
purpose of going into Bithynia, and then through Mysia down 
to the coast at Troas, would seem to indicate that the apostle’s 
route lay greatly to the north of the city of Colosse. 

With regard to the apostle’s second journey, the language 
is also indeterminate. Only it was a journey of visitation, 
and if there was no previous sojourn in Colosse, and no 
existing church in it, then the apostle was under no induce- 
ment to turn his steps towards it. He came from Antioch 
into Phrygia and Galatia, and thence down to Ephesus. 
If he had taken the great road to the A¢gean, through the 
valley of the Maeander, he must have come near Colosse; 
but the probability is, that he passed again farther to the 
north—for he passed, in fact, through “the upper coasts,” 
or table land. 

The apostle was for more than three years at Ephesus, and 
we may be assured, that evangelizing influence would be 
diffused through the surrounding country. Qualified preachers 
would visit the various districts, proclaim the gospel, and gather 
together small communities. Probably, by one of such disciples 
might the truth be carried a hundred miles eastward to Colosse, 
during the period “when all they which dwelt in Asia heard the 
word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” There is nothing in 
the brief allusions in the Acts of the Apostles to warrant the 
supposition that Paul himself had preached in Colosse. His 
apostolic journeys never approached it. We know not his 
preximate reasons for not visiting it, nor can we tell from 
what, or how many motives, apart from direct revelation, his 
route, in any case, was orginally chalked out, and afterwards 
modified or departed from altogether. The course we may 
venture to propose for him might, for anything we can know, 
have presented insuperable difficulties, even though we should 
be able to defend it by a reference to geography and itine- 


ΧΥΙ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


raries, based on the researches and discoveries of modern 
travel. And we are sure that if, when in Phrygia, the apostle 
did not visit Laodicea—its capital, it was because there was 
more pressing work for him elsewhere, while a higher power 
and wisdom were guiding him in all the points of his busy 
and sublime career. 

The second class of arguments in favour of the notion that 
Paul himself founded the church in Colosse, is drawn from a 
critical estimate of the general spirit and occasional sentiments 
of the epistle itself. 

Dr. Lardner adduces the apostle’s earnest belief, that the 
Colossians rightly knew the truth (i. 6), as evidence that pro- 
bably himself had taught them. But the inference is strained, 
and the context disallows it; for the proper translation is— 
‘which bringing forth fruit, as it does also in you, from the 
day ye heard it, and knew the grace of God in truth, just as 
ye learned it from Epaphras.” The proof based upon xaf, 
in the phrase καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ ᾽᾿Επαφρᾶ, is not valid, for 
the best MSS. exclude καί, though Wiggers contends that the 
theory we espouse and are now defending, may have led to 
its exclusion. See our commentary on the place. 

Nor is there tangible evidence in the declaration made in 
i. 8, where the apostle tells how Epaphras had declared to 
him and his companions their love in the spirit. Even taking 
Dr. Lardner’s interpretation of the phrase as meaning their 
affection for the apostle himself, how can it prove a prior and 
personal acquaintance? For surely Christian love does not 
depend on personal interview or recognition, else it would be 
impossible for any one to love the whole “household of faith.” 
Nor can the presence of Epaphras at Rome, his intimacy with 
the apostle, and the accounts which he brought of the spiritual 
condition of the Colossian believers, be any presumption that 
they were the apostle’s own converts; for who that has seen 
the workings of his large heart would limit Paul’s interest to 
those churches gathered by his own preaching? 

The apostle, indeed, says to the Colossian church,—“ If 
ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not 
moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have 
heard, and which was preached to every creature which is . 


LARDNER’S ARGUMENTS. XVil 


under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister: who now 
rejoice in my sufferimgs for you, and fill up that which is 
behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s 
sake, which is the church; whereof I am made a minister, 
according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for 
you, to fulfil the word of God.” But no part of this language 
will warrant the inference which some would put upon it. 
He does not say that he had ever preached to the Colossians, 
he only says that he was suffering for them. And those 
sufferings arose purely from his being the apostle of the 
Gentiles, as indeed he indicates in a subsequent clause. There 
he intimates to them that the persecutions which harassed 
him arose from-his special relation to the Gentile churches. 
In no other sense than in this general one, could he be suffer- 
ing for the Colossians, for personally they were in no way 
instrumental in causing his incarceration and appeal. The 
charges against him involved nothing said or done at Colosse, 
the church there was not implicated in the least degree. But 
for their evangelical liberty and that of all the churches of 
heathendom the apostle was bound in fetters. 

No stress can be laid on the use of the word ἄπειμι in 
i. 5, though Lardner, and Wiggers after him, appeal to it, as 
implying that the apostle had once been present in Colosse. 
His language simply is,—‘ For though I be absent in the 
flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding 
your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.” 
The apostle, however, does not say I am now absent, as if he 
referred by such a contrast to a previous period. The con- 
trast is of another nature. It is such an absence as brings out 
the idea of presence in spirit—‘‘I am away from you, and yet 
I am with you—personally at a great distance, but still in 
spirit in the very midst of you.” 

It is also said, ii. 16,—‘ Let the word of Christ dwell in 
you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one 
another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing 
with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” It puzzles us to 
understand how Dr. Lardner could extract from this admoni- 
tion any proof “ that the Colossians were endued with spiritual 
gifts.” The descriptive counsel refers not to any extra- 


"Πρ. 


XViil THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


ordinary endowment, nor yet to the composition of sacred 
melodies; but merely to the chanting of them. That “grace” 
which was in their hearts is the gift of God to all believers. 

Again, if, as we have seen, the record of the affection which 
the Colossian believers bore to the apostle be no evidence of 
personal intimacy, neither can any “full proof” of it be dis- 
covered in the brief note — “all my state shall Tychicus 
declare unto you.” If, as the apostle of the Gentiles, Paul 
encountered such persecutions, would not they for whom he 
so nobly suffered be deeply interested in him, and would not 
he respond to such natural anxiety, and inform them, through 
Tychicus, of many things with which he did not choose to 
cumber an epistle ? 

The salutations sent by him to Colosse are neither in num- 
ber nor familiarity any additional argument, and certainly do 
not bear out Lardner’s affirmation, that “ Paul was well 
acquainted with the state of the churches in Colosse and 
Laodicea.” For might not the names of the six men who 
send their Christian greetings be well known to the Colos- 
sians? The apostle might know that Nymphas had a church 
in his house without his ever being in it himself; and 
being “such an one as Paul the aged,” he surely needed 
not the formality of a personal introduction to Archippus, in 
order to take the liberty of sending him the brief and emphatic 
charge—“ take heed to the ministry which thou hast received 
in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.” On the other hand, how 
many, various, tender, and special are his salutations sent to 
the church in Rome, where he had never been. 

Dr. Lardner argues, again, for a personal intimacy from Col. 
iv. ὃ, 4, a passage which contains the apostle’s earnest request 
for the prayers of the Colossian believers, and that they would 
remember his bonds; but Dr. Lardner also supplies the answer 
himself when he admits, that “such demands may be made 
of strangers.” Nor can his theory be sustained by his appeal 
to the Epistle to Philemon. Philemon was a convert of the 
apostle’s own, but Dr. Lardner candidly allows that his con- 
version, though “it might as well have been done at home,” 
yet “might have been done at some other place.” It is cer- 
tainly a very slender ground of argument which Wiggers 


THEODORET’S ARGUMENT. ΧΙΧ 
adopts, when he appeals to the conjunction of Timothy’s name 
with the apostle’s in the inscription of the epistle. or surely 
as a special companion of the apostle, and engaged so often 
in missionary work and travel, Timothy must have been well 
known at Colosse; and, as Dr. Davidson well remarks, ‘ among 
the various disciples of the apostle who were at Colosse, it is 
not improbable that Timothy had a part in instructing the 
church.” Indeed, some regard him as probably its founder. 
But, lastly, a principal ground of dispute is the passage 
occurring in Col. 1. 1, 2,‘ For I would that ye knew 
what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodi- 
cea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the 
flesh; that their hearts might be comforted, being knit 
together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance 
of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery 
of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.” Theodoret based 
his theory upon one interpretation of the words. “Some,” 
says he, “are of the opinion, that when the divine apostle 
wrote this epistle he had not seen the Colossians. And they 
attempt to support their arguments by those words......... But 
they should reflect, that the meaning of the words is this—I 
have not only a concern for you, but I have likewise great 
concern for those who have not seen me.’ And if he is not 
understood in this sense, he expresses no concern for those 
who had seen him and been taught by him.” That is to say, 
Theodoret supposes two classes of persons to be referred to— 
the Colossians and Laodiceans who had seen the apostle’s face, 
and another indiscriminate class who had never enjoyed his 
personal ministry. The words may of themselves bear such 
an interpretation, But it is objectionable on various grounds. 
The adjective ὅσοι may refer back to the persons mentioned, 
and may thus introduce a common characteristic -— for you 
and them in Laodicea, and indeed not only you, but all in the 
same category, who have never seen my face in the flesh. 
The clause—‘and for as many as have not seen my face in 
the flesh,” has no harmonious connection, if it stand so dis- 
joined from the previous clause as to point out in sharp con- 


a > , ew - ΄ ͵ ey oe "> 
'" Ori οὐ μόνον ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν μηδέπω redcamtvay με πολλὴν ἔχω φροντίδα. 


xX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


trast other believing communities. With this exegesis one 
might infer from the language of the following verses, that all 
who had not seen the apostle’s face in the flesh were beset 
with the same dangers as the church in Colosse. For the 
virtual prayer is, that they might be fortified against that false 
philosophy which was raising its head in Phrygia, by the full- 
assured understanding of that gospel in which are deposited 
‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” But surely 
among the many churches who had not seen Paul, there 
must have been many to whom the prayer in its specialty 
was not and could not be adapted, and for whom this “ con- 
flict” was not necessary. That “conflict” was excited by the 
danger which menaced Colosse; but all the churches unvisited 
by the apostle could not be in similar jeopardy, so as to create 
a similar solicitude and prayer. It is true that the care of 
all the churches came upon him daily, and all of them 
shared in his intense and prayerful anxiety. Yet it was his 
pride (if the expression may be pardoned) to originate Christ- 
ian societies. He thus speaks—‘‘not boasting of things with- 
out our measure, that is, of other men’s labours ;”’ “ yea,” says 
he again, “so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where 
Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s 
foundation.”” This distinction, so boldly drawn by the apostle, 
brought the churches founded by himself into a very special 
relationship with him. Is it at all likely then, that if he had 
founded the churches of Colosse and Laodicea, and had occa- 
sion to tell them what a conflict he had for them, he would 
modify and weaken the statement, by adding, that his feeling 
for them was quite the same with that he entertained for 
churches with which he had never had any personal connec- 
tion? Would not the sentiment just quoted from the epistles 
to Rome and Corinth be somewhat at variance with that sup- 
posed to be so expressed to Colosse? Would it have been a 
source of peculiar comfort to the churches of Colosse and Laodi- 
tea, if Paul had founded them, to tell them, that notwith- 
standing his personal intimacy with them and their imminent 
danger, they were nota whit nearer his heart than the remotest 


12 (Cor. 15: 2 Rom. xv. 20. 


CHURCH IN COLOSSE NOT FOUNDED BY PAUL. ΧΧΙ 


Christian community of which he had but the slightest intelli- 
gence? The apostle possessed too much of our common nature 
thus to dissipate his friendships in vagueness, and he had too 
much knowledge of human nature to attempt to create a re- 
sponse to his own anxieties by so expressing himself. No, he 
had not visited these churches; but special circumstances gave 
him a tender interest in them. His peculiar interest in the 
churches planted by himself might be matter of notoriety in 
the district, and they of Colosse and Laodicea might be dis- 
posed to feel that they had not such a claim on the apostle as 
the churches of Galatia in their vicinity. But the crisis which 
had occurred roused the apostle to a sense of their danger; that 
danger gave them a warm place in his bosom, and to assure 
them of this, he declares his anxiety that they knew what a 
conflict he had for them, and for all around them, indeed, as 
many as had not seen his face in the flesh. The reference in 
ὅσοι is plainly to their own neighbourhood, particularly includ- 
ing Hierapolis, which is afterwards mentioned, and which might 
be menaced by the same form of error. ‘They had not enjoyed 
his teaching, and they had the more need of his prayers. If 
he had seen them in the flesh he might have warned them; or, 
as in the case of Ephesus, uttered his presentiment of danger, 
and endeavoured to fortify them against it. The translation of 
Wiggers, “also for them, to wit in Colosse and Laodicea, who 
have not seen my face in the flesh,” is too restrictive, and takes 
for granted that Paul had been in both those places, but had 
not been brought into personal contact with all the members 
of the churches. We give the words a wider significance. 
We doubt not that several members of those churches may 
have seen the apostle during his long stay at Ephesus. The 
apostle, however, does not contrast them with others who had 
not enjoyed the same precious opportunity. He speaks not to 
individuals but to communities, and classes with them others 
around them similarly circumstanced. In the following verse, 
he mentions all the parties in the third person, as if they all 
stood in the same category. 

Tt is also to be specially observed that the apostle, though 
he combats error, never refers to his own personal teaching, or 
hints at what himself had delivered on those subjects of con- 


ΧΧΙῚΙ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


troversy at Colosse. Though the introduction of the gospel 
seems to be referred to, the apostie in no sense or shape con- 
nects it with himself. Very different is his style in the other 
epistles when he recalls the scenes and circumstances in which 
the churches had been planted or watered by his personal 
ministrations. 

The probability is that the church in Colosse was founded by 
Epaphras, of whom the apostle says, ‘who is for you a faithful 
minister of Christ ;” and of whom he also testifies: “ Epaphras, 
who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always 
labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand per- 
fect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him 
record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are 
in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.” 

In conclusion, the view which we have advocated is gen- 
erally that of the writers of Introduction, with the exception 
of Schott, Borger, and Neudecker; and with the exception of 
Theodoret, Macknight, Adam Clarke, Barnes, and Koch on 
Philemon, it is also the view of the great body of commen- 
tators upon the epistle, such as Calvin, Suicer, Flatt, Bihr, 
Huther, De Wette, Junker, Steiger, Olshausen, Béhmer, 
Meyer, Schrader, Bloomfield, and Baumgarten-Crusius. 


IlIl.—-THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


In the early church the genuineness of this epistle was 
universally acknowledged. No misconception of its contents, 
or prejudice against them, led to any suspicions about its 
authorship. No inquisitive spirit found anything in it un- 
worthy of the apostle, or unlike his usual modes of thought 
and style. No heretic seems to have been bold enough to 
exclude it from his canon, though in the first centuries it must 
have often confronted some prevalent forms of error and super- 
stition. Eusebius therefore placed it among the ‘OuoAoyod- 
μενα, or books which were confessed on all sides to be of 
apostolical origin. Tertullian has quoted this epistle about 
thirty times, and in such a way as clearly to evince his belief 
in its Pauline origin. The nineteenth chapter of his fifth book 
against Marcion, is a summary of its contents, so far as they 


PROOFS FROM THE FATHERS. XXlil 


served his polemical purpose.’ His great authority throughout 
is Paul, whom he simply names apostolus. 

At a prior date Clement of Alexandria has also many allusions 
to it. For example, in the sixth book of his Stromata, after main- 
taining that Paul does not condemn all philosophy, he quotes 
Col. τ. 8, with the preface—wodutwe ἄρα καὶ τοῖς κολασσαεῦσι." 
In the fourth book of the same Miscellany he quotes that section 
of this epistle* which enjoins the duties of domestic life, and 
ascribes it to Paul, who was the prime authority to him as to 
Tertullian. It is found also in the anonymous canon pub- 
lished by Muratori,“—a document of the beginning of the 
third century. ‘The Syrian churches had it in their collection, 
as is evident from the old Syrian translation. Origen, in the 
eighth chapter of the fifth book of his reply to Celsus, has a 
quotation from Col. 11. 18, 19, prefaced by the remark—zapa 
δὲ τῷ Παύλῳ ἀκριβῶς τὰ ᾿Ιουδαίως παιδευθέντι......«τοιαῦτ᾽ ἐν 
τῇ πρὸς Κολοσσαεὶς λέλεκται." 

In Justin’s dialogue with Trypho, no less than four times is 
Col. 1. 15, 16 referred to or quoted, the point of the quotation 
being the term πρωτότοκος. The same term is also cited by 
Theophilus’ of Antioch, who wrote toward the latter end of the 
second century, and is found in his three books to Autolycus. 

Many distinct and lengthened quotations are found in 
Irenaeus, who flourished about the same period as Theo- 
philus.* Thus, in the fourth chapter of his first book “ Against 
Heresies,” he says the following things are spoken plainly by 
Paul—i76 τοῦ Παύλου δὲ φανερῶς, and he cites first Col. 11. 
11, and then Col. 1. 9. Or, again, the quotation of Col. i. 21, 
22, is introduced with the words—et propter hoc apostolus in 
epistola quae est ad Colossenses ait. Indisputable citations or 
allusions cannot be brought from the apostolical Fathers. Mar- 
cion included the book in his canon, giving it the eighth place 
in his catalogue. There can be no doubt at all of the unani- 

1 Opera, ed. Oehler, vol. ii. p. 330, &e. 

2 Opera, p. 645, ed. Coloniae, 1688. 3 Do. p. 499. 
4 Antiq. Ital. Med. Aivi. tom. iii. p. 854. 

5 Ῥ, 236, ed. Spencer, Cantab. 1677. 

6 Opera, ed. Otto, vol. ii. p. 268, 336, 418, 452. 


7 Lib. ii. p. 100, ed. Coloniae, 1686. 
8 Adver. Haereses, xlii. Opera, vol. i. p. 41, ed. Stieren, 1853, Do. p. 756. 


χχὶν THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


mous opinion of the primitive church on the subject; in Italy, 


Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt, there was no conflicting 
testimony. 

Through the intervening centuries, and up to a very recent 
period, the genuineness of the epistle was also acknowledged to 
be beyond dispute. Indeed, when Bihr wrote his commentary 
on it in 1832, he says, in his Introduction, “it has been 
hitherto universally acknowledged, and has been called in 
question by nobody, not even by De Wette.” A few years 
later, however, Germany began to present an exception. 
Schrader, in his note on Col. iv. 10, took occasion, from 
the message sent by the apostle about Mark, to find a 
difficulty, and out of it to raise a suspicion that the epistle 
might not be Paul’s, as it wants the individuality found in 
some other of his epistolary compositions.’ Mayerhoff, in 
1838, made a bold and formal assault, and he has been fol- 
lowed up by Baur and his disciple, Schwegler. Mayerhoff’s? 
posthumous treatise, edited by his brother, is certainly far 
from being conclusive. Proceeding on very vague and unsatis- 
factory principles, it abounds with a somewhat mechanical 
selection of words and phrases, picks out ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, and 
gives prominence to what are reckoned un-Pauline forms of 
expression and thought. 

But the course of criticism is thoroughly defective. For if 
the apostle have a special end in view he must employ special 
diction. If that end be peculiar, the style must necessarily 
share in the peculiarity. If in one epistle he explain his 
system and in another defend it, the expository style may 
surely be expected to differ from the polemical style. If in 
one composition he combats one form of error, and one set of 
adversaries, can you anticipate identical phraseology in another 
letter in which he assaults a very different shape of heresy, 
patronized by a wholly diverse band of opponents? Individu- 
ality would be lost in proportion to such sameness, and the 
absence of it would be the surest proof of spuriousness. No 
sound critic would test the style of Colossians by that of Ist 

1 Der Apostel Paulus, vol. iv. p. 176, Leipzig, 1856. 

2 Der Brief an die Colosser, mit vornehmlicher Beriicksichtigung der drei Pastoral- 
briefe; kritisch gepriift von Dr. Ernst Theodor Mayerhoff, Berlin, 1858. 


MAYERHOFF’S OBJECTIONS. XXV 


Thessalonians, or throw suspicion on the former because it does 
not reveal the same aspects of thought and allusion. Nor 
would he place it side by side with Galatians, and roughly 
say, that both are polemical, and that therefore the same 
topics of controversy and trains of thought should be found in 
both. Who would reject 1st Corinthians because the favourite 
and almost essential term σωτηρία is not to be found in it, or 
throw Philippians out of the canon because words so significant 
and Pauline as σώζειν and καλεῖν do not oceur in it? 
Mayerhoff’s first argument is that of lexical difference, and 
he instances the want of σώζω and its derivatives, and of καλεῶ 
and its derivatives used with reference to the Divine kingdom. 
But in this epistle the apostle has no occasion to employ these 
terms, for his primary object is not to expound salvation or 
our calling to it, but to defend the personal and official glory 
of its great author and finisher—Christ. No wonder that 
the expressive term, Χριστός, occurs by itself at least twenty 
times in the epistle. Again, the words νόμος and πίστις do 
not occupy a prominent place; and no wonder, for the object 
of the writer is not, as in Romans and Galatians, to explain the 
nature and relations of faith and law. “The particle γάρ," says 
Mayerhoff, “ occurs only six times; but in Philippians seven- 
teen, and in Romans one hundred and fifty times.” But surely, 
if the adverb be so prominent a feature of the apostle’s other 
writings, he must be a very bungling forger who would not 
plentifully sprinkle his pages with it. An imitator would not 
venture a copy with so few instances of the characteristic γάρ. 
The use of such a term would rather lead a forger to multi- 
plication, till its very frequency detected him. We agree 
with Olshausen, who says, in the first section of the Introduc- 
tion to his Commentary, “he that can take account of such 
mere accidents, and that so seriously (ernstlich), that he 
reckons how often yap occurs in each epistle, decides his own 
incapacity for judging on similarity and difference of style.” 
In opposition to the scantiness of yao, Mayerhoff produces the 
frequency of ἐν, which occurs in the first two chapters sixty 
times; and in the whole Epistle to the Philippians only fifty 
times. But would an impostor hazard such a profusion of this 


monosyllable ? Besides, a very large number of the instances 
6 


XXvi THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE, 


refer formally or by implication to union with Christ—a dar- 
ling idea of the apostle, and one which in this epistle he is so 
naturally led to insert. When the apostle combats a system 
of proud and false philosophy, need we wonder at the re- 
currence of γνῶσις, or the emphatic form, ἐπίγνωσις ? 

And then as to ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. Where now should one 
expect them? Certainly when a writer is busied with some 
unusual theme. And so it is in Colossians. Out of above 
thirty distinct ἅπαξ λεγόμενα which we have noted in the 
course of our study of this epistle, no less than eighteen occur 
in the second chapter, where the novel form of error is dis- 
cussed and refuted, and the majority of them are characteristic 
terms. Such are the distinctive words, πιθανολογία---φιλο- 
σοφία, χειρόγραφον, θεότης, σωματικῶς, εἰρηνοποιέω, ἐθελο- 
θρησκεία, νουμηνία, ἀπόχρησις, ἀφειδία, πλησμονή ; With other 
terms associated with them, as στερέωμα; ἀπεκδύσις, συλλαγω- 
γῶν, καταβραβεύω, προσηλώσας, δογματίζω, ἐμβατεύω. Now, 
if the apostle be under the necessity of describing a system of 
error which he has described nowhere else, may we not expect 
words which occur nowhere else, or must his free spirit limit 
itself to vocables already employed by him on former oc- 
casions? Is the new conception to be deprived of a new 
expression? Must the apostle, for the purpose of authenti- 
cating his writings, bind himself to a meagre and worn-out 
vocabulary ? Shall we refuse to this master of language what we 
freely yield to every other author? If} in a writing of one age 
we discover some terms which belonged to an earlier one, but 
had faded into disuse, or some which came into currency only 
during a later epoch, we justly look upon it with suspicion. 
But every author has surely liberty to range among the terms 
of his own period, and to employ the most fitting of them to 
embody his thoughts. If he never wrote so before, you infer 
that he never thought so before. If Mayerhoff had set him- 
self to describe the symbols of the Apocalypse, he must have 
used many phrases not found in this treatise, and therefore 
with equal propriety, and on the same evidence, might some 
reviewer argue that the author of such a production could not 
be the author of this attack on the genuineness of the Epistle 
to the Colossians and the three pastoral epistles. 


ACCIDENTAL IRREGULARITIES NO OBJECTION. XXVI1 


Nor is there any greater force in Mayerhoff’s objections, 
based on grammatical differences. Of his charge of tautology 
we find no proof. When he stumbles on phrases very like 
the apostle’s usual style, he affirms they are not really resem- 
blances at all. He complains of the absence of anakolutha; 
and when he does meet them, he detects something wrong 
or un-Pauline in them. Some connective particles are absent 
in this epistle; but ἄρα, one of them referred to by him, is not 
found in Philippians, nor does δίο, another of them, occur in 
Galatians; while οὐχι, which occurs fourteen times in Ist Corin- 
thians, is not found in Philippians, nor here, nor in Galatians. 
On such irregularities no argument can be founded. Thus, 
the particle τέ, which occurs often in Romans, is found neither 
in Galatians nor 1st Thessalonians. The conjunction ἐάν, occur- 
ring twenty times in Romans, is found forty-five times in 1st Cor- 
inthians, but is absent from Philippians; and, again, ἤ is met with 
fifty-two times in 1st Corinthians, but only twice in Philippians." 

There is nothing peculiar in the forms of construction 
adduced by Mayerhoff. He next accuses the writer of this 
epistle of hunting after synonyms, but the examples which he 
selects are in no case synonymous.” Who but Mayerhoff 

! Huther, Commentar, p. 423. 

2 We present those which he has given out of the first and third chapters, and we 
refer to the following exposition for the distinctive meaning of the terms :—I., 6. καρ- 
ποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον---Ἰ., 6. ἀκούειν καὶ ἐπιγινώσκειν---1.,) 7. συνδοῦλος et 
διάκονος---Ἰ., 9. προσευχόμενοι καὶ αἰτούμενοι---ἶν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει---Ἰ.,) 10. χαρ- 
ποφοροῦντες καὶ αὐξανόμενοι---Ἰ., 11. εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροϑυμίαν---Ἰ., 18. 
ἀρχὴ et πρωτότοκος σῶν νεκρῶν---1., 21. ὑμᾶς, ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους καὶ 
ex Seovs—lI., 22. ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους---Ἰ.) 28. πεϑερελιωμένοι καὶ 
ἑδραῖοι καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι.--ἰ., 24. παθήματα et ϑλίψεις---Ἰ., 26. ἀπὸ σῶν αἰώνων 
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν---Ἰ., 28. νουϑετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα 
ἄνθρωσον---111., 2. τὰ ἄνω ξητεῖτε, τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε---1Π71., 5. σορνείω et ἀκαϑαρσία 
.--σάϑο; et ἐπιϑυμίωα κακή---11]., 8. ὀργὴ καὶ ϑυμός--- βλασφημία et αἰσχρολογία---- 
1Π|., 10. ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον (ἄνϑρωπον) καὶ ἀνακαινούμενον---Τ11., 12. ἐκλεκτοὶ rod 
Θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι---σπλάγχνα οἰκπιρμοῦ et χρησσότης---τασεινοφροσύνη et 
πραότης-- μακροϑυμία et ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλον---Τ71., 16. ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ 
νουϑεποῦντες---“αλμοῖς, ὑμνοῖς, woais, etc.—Mayerhoff, pp. 35, 36. Huther, in reply, 
presents the following similarities out of Philippians i.:—V. 3. ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν 
— —ty πάσῃ δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν---- ----τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος ; V.7. ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ 
βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; ν. 9. ἐν ἐπιγνώσεν καὶ σπάσῃ αἰσθήσει; τ. 10. εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ 
ἀπρόσκοποι; Vv. 11. εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Seod; v. 15. διὰ φϑόνον καὶ ἔριν; v. 20. 
κατὰ τὲν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου; V. 24. μενῶ καὶ συμπαραμενῶ; V. 25. εἰς 


σὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χάραν τῆς wicrews.—Huther, pp. 427, 428. 


ΧΧΥΠῚ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


would lay any stress on the various diction in the formula of 
salutation? If the apostle, in such a prominent place, had 
been in the habit of using a uniform formula, then the least 
cunning of impostors would have been sure to copy it with 
slavish correctness. 

Not less futile are Mayerhoff’s criticisms on differences of 
idea or expression to be found in the epistle. He discovers a 
host of parallel repetitions, which in reality are either not re- 
petitions at all, or repetitions for an avowed object. Col. 1. 1, 
Ὁ ΤΟΣ 13, 14 Ὁ 18. τς: 

Another objection, based on a gross misconception, takes up 
the very different aspect under which the νόμος is viewed 
here, from the representations given of it in the other epistles. 
Now, not to say that νόμος does not occur in this epistle at 
all, it may be replied, that it is not law as a Divine institute 
which is here referred to, or the law which is spoken of so 
often in the Epistle to the Romans. What is spoken of here 
is the ceremonial law, which was abrogated by being fulfilled 
in the death of Christ, and not the moral law, which is as 
immutable as the legislator. What total ignorance of the 
object of the apostle to say, that because he speaks of “ ele- 
ments of the world,” ““ commandments and doctrines of men,” 
and “ traditions of men,” he gives these names to the Divine 
law, and then to infer that such doctrine cannot be Paul’s, since 
he always looks upon the law as Divine, holy, and spiritual. 
It is surely one thing to speak thus cf the law, and quite 
another thing to reprobate human additions to it. 

There is no doubt, as Mayerhoff says, that in Colossians 
some acts, which are often ascribed to Christ, are ascribed to 
God; but such a variation not being confined to the epistle 
is no mark of un-Pauline peculiarity. And lastly, Mayerhoff’s 
objection to its Christology cannot be sustained. For the 
form which it has assumed has most evidently a reference to 
such shapes of errors as were propounded at Colosse, and the 
terms which the errorists used may have been selected by the 
apostle and sanctified by their legitimate application to the 
Divine Redeemer. Baur and Schwegler’ also adduce the 


1 Der Apostel Paulus, p. 421. 2 Nachap. Zeit. ii. p. 289. 


COMPARISON OF THH TWO EPISTLES. XX1X 


doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence taught in Ephesians and 
Colossians, as proof that the two epistles were not written 
by Paul. The objection carries its own refutation. 

In fact this whole process of assault is one of capricious sub- 
jectivity. One writer decides that the Epistle to the Ephesians 
is spurious, because it is only a verbose expansion of that to the 
Colossians; and another, with equal taste and correctness, 
affirms that the Epistle to the Colossians is spurious, because 
it is an unskilful abstract of that to the Ephesians; while, 
according to the judgment of Baur, both epistles must stand 
or fall together. 

To gain his purpose, Mayerhoff has compared throughout 
the two epistles of Colossians and Ephesians. But surely the 
real similarity which they present may be easily accounted 
for,—that similarity being found chiefly in the concluding 
and practical portions. Schneckenburger has pronounced 
this similarity—a similarity in unimportant things—to be 
‘Ca mechanical use of materials.” But the one epistle is very 
far from being a copy of the other. There is distinctness of 
aim with occasional identity of thought. The great body of 
each epistle is different, nor do they slavishly agree even in 
what may be termed common-places. There is, indeed, far less 
similarity than is commonly supposed—all that is special 
about each of them is wholly different, and even in the para- 
eraphs where there is similarity, there is seldom or never 
sameness, some new turn being mingled with the thought, or 
some new edge being given to the admonition. As is noticed 
in our Commentary, even where the apostle addresses spouses, 
children, and slaves, and refers to the same duties, there is 
yet variety in the form and reasons of advice. The one letter 
is general, the other is special; the one is didactic, the other 
controversial. The one presents truth in itself, the other 
developes the truth in conflict with parallel error. And there 
is no servile imitation, no want of life and freshness. 

Mayerhoft’s last argument is based on the date of the errors 
which he imagines to be refuted in this epistle. He holds that 
the heresy of Cerinthus is aimed at and exposed by the writer, 
and he infers that as the false doctrine of Cerinthus was not 
developed till after the apostle’s time, therefore the apostle 


XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


could not be the writer. The truth of his chronological state- 
ment it is impossible for him to prove. It would seem that Cerin- 
thus was soon after this in Ephesus, and in antagonism with the 
Apostle John; so that, even though it could be proved that 
Cerinthus was the person the writer had in his eye, it would 
not follow that he could not be the apostle of the Gentiles. 
Mayerhoft’s view of the nature of the false doctrines con- 
demned is not very different from our own, but there is no 
necessity to identify them thus with Cerinthus, and then to 
assign his era to post-Pauline times. Olshausen says that 
Cerinthus may have been by this time in Colosse, though he 
adds, that he could hardly have that influence which should 
mark him out as the leader of a formidable party. 

Baur and Schwegler subscribe to not a few of Mayerhoff’s 
critical objections based upon the style of the epistle. But 
Baur holds it to have had its origin m the Gnosticism of the 
second century. Mayerhoff admits that Baumgarten has 
shown that such a hypothesis is untenable against the pastoral 
epistles, though himself is bold enough to attack them on 
other grounds. But the Gnosticism of the second century in its 
theosophy and angelology presupposes, in fact, the existence 
of those apostolic documents. ‘The citations from Hippolytus 
have sadly perplexed those critics of Tiibingen—as they show 
. that books of the New Testament are quoted by him fully half 
a century before those German scholars allowed their existence. 
(See our Introduction to Commentary on Ephesians, p. xxxii.) 

The attacks on this epistle are therefore of no formidable 
nature, and the cpinion of the church of Christ, in so many 
countries and for so many centuries, may be acquiesced in 
without hesitation. 


IV.—THE FALSE TEACHERS IN CCLOSSE. 


There has been no small amount of erudition and research 
expended upon the question, as to what party or parties in 
Colosse held the errors condemned by the apostle. The 
attempt has often been made to identify these errorists with 
some formed and well-known sect. But there is not sufficient 
foundation for such minuteness. All that we know of the 
false teachers is contained in the few and brief allusions to 


ERRORISTS IN COLOSSE, NOT JEWS. XXX1 


their heresies. And these allusions are not systematically 
given as an analysis of their system, but only as occasion 
required, and for the purpose of confirming the opposite 
truths. The probability is, that the false teachers had at that 
period no fully developed system—that they held only a few 
prominent tenets, such as those which the apostle condemns ; 
and that they were rather the exponents of certain prevailing 
tendencies, than the originators of a defined and formal heresy. 
They were thrown up by the current, and they indicated at 
once its direction and its strength. Many ages in the church 
have exhibited a similar phenomenon, when the errors which 
certain men promulgate appear, from their seductive power 
and immediate success, to be but the expression of those 
sentiments which had already taken a deep and latent hold of 
the general mind. 

The errors in Colosse rose within the church, and were 
produced by a combination of influences. Had they grown up 
without the church, they would have appeared with a hostile 
front, inviting an instant and a sturdy resistance. If Jew 
or heathen had announced his creed, none would have listened 
to it, save as to the challenge of an avowed enemy. It is 
only when error is nursed in the bosom of the church itself, 
not like a poisonous weed transplanted from the desert, but 
hike the tares among the wheat, that truth is in the greatest 
danger. If we reflect for a moment on the mental tendencies 
of those early times, as seen both in the Phrygian tempera- 
ment and in the Jewish characteristics; if we remember how 
strongly the Oriental spirit was leavened with the desire to 
enter the spirit-world by theosophic speculation, and attain to 
sanctity by ascetic penance, we need not wonder at the indi- 
cations of error contained in the epistle to the church in 
Colosse. 

Our inference, therefore, is, that the theory which holds that 
those false teachers were Jews without even a profession of ἵ 
Christianity, is utterly untenable. The arguments of Eichhorn,’ 
Schultess, and Schoettgen, in vindication of this view, are very 
unsatisfactory. Nowhere in the epistle are they branded as 


' Einlett. vol. iii. p. 288. 


XXX THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


unbelievers, or spoken of as unconverted antagonists of the 
gospel. Their error was not in denying, but in dethroning 
Christ—not in refusing, but in undervaluing his death, and in 
seeking peace and purity by means of ceremonial distinctions 
and rigid mortifications. Such a nimbus of external sanctity 
as Eichhorn ascribes to them would not have dazzled the 
Colossians, if it had surrounded a Jewish brow; nor would ritual 
observances have possessed any seductive power, if inculcated 
by Jewish doctors, as Schoettgen names them. Neither 
Pharisaic nor Essenic rigorists would have been spoken of by 
the apostle in the style in which he describes the false teachers 
at Colosse. Stern denunciations would have been heaped 
upon them as the rejecters of the Messiah, and disturbers of 
the church. But the errors promulgated in Colosse were 
wrapt up with important truths, and were therefore possessed 
of dangerous attractions. They were not a refutation of the 
gospel, but a sublimation of it. The Colossian errorists did 
not wish to subvert the new religion, but only to perfect it; 
did not even under the mere mantle of a Christian profession 
strive to win the church over to Judaism, as Schneckenburger' 
and Feilmoser® think; but to introduce into the church cer- 
tain mystic views, and certain forms of a supereminent pietism, 
which had grown up with a spiritualized and theosophic system. 
In other words, they were noi traitors, but they were fanatics. 
They did not counterfeit so as to surrender the citadel, but 
only streve to alter its discipline and supplant its present 
armour. In the Apocalyptic epistles, the pseudo-apostles at 
Ephesus, the synagogue of Satan at Smyrna, the woman Jez- 
ebel the prophetess in Thyatira, and the Nicolaitans or Ba- 
laamites in Pergamos, whatever their errors and immoralities, 
were all within the church, and wore at least the mask of 
Christianity. Neither could the errorists at Colosse be the 
mere disciples of Apollos, or of John the Baptist, as extra- 
ecclesiastical sects. Heinrichs and Michaelis want a historical 
basis for such an assertion, for we cannot tell how long Apollos 
taught ere the apostle imparted to him full instruction; and 


1 Beitr. Zur Einl. p. 146. 
? Einl. p. 149. See, on the other hand, the well-known treatise of Rheinwald, 
De Pseudo-Doctoribus Coloss. Bonn., 1834. 


SPECIAL FORMS OF ERROR. XXXill 


there is no doubt that he would at once communicate his more 
perfect knowledge to all his brethren. His teaching was but 
a preparatory step to Christianity. The false teaching at | 
Colosse is not spoken of by the apostle as a rude and unde- 
veloped scheme which stopped short of Christianity; but a 
system which brought into Christianity elementary practices, | 
vain superstitions, and attempts at an unearthly and sancti- 
monious life. If it was pleased with the unfinished, it also 
soared, by means of it, into the transcendental. Apollos was 
indeed a Jew of Alexandria, and there is little doubt that 
some elements of Alexandrian or Philonic’ Judaism were to be 
found in Colosse, but found in connection with Christian 
belief, or were combined with such views, feelings, and pro- 
fessions, as had warranted admission into the church. 

These: errors did not involve of themselves, though they 
might soon lead to, immoral practices. It was not, as in Χ 
Corinth, where debauchery prevailed, and impurity had been 
associated with the pagan worship, where the Lord’s Supper 
had been profaned, and the idea of a resurrection had been 
more than called in question. Nor was it as in Thessalonica, , 
where a vital doctrine had been seriously misunderstood, and 
sundry minor evils had begun to show themselves. In Galatia 
there had been a bold and open attempt to uphold systematic- 
ally the authority of the Mosaic law, and enforce its observ- 
ance on the churches as essential to salvation; but the apostle 


AS 


meets the crisis with a stern and uncompromising opposition. 
And there was in Rome, too, a proud and self-righteous 
Jewish spirit, that relied on illustrious Abrahamic descent and 
conformity to the letter of the law for justification. Therefore 
the apostle formally proves by a lengthened argument, that to 
guilty and helpless humanity the only refuge is in the grace 
of God and the righteousness of Christ. 

But the case was somewhat different at Colosse. The 
teaching was of a more refined nature. It does not seem to 
have insisted on circumcision as a positive Mosaic rite, but 
as the means of securing spiritual benefit. It was not dog- 
matically said, ‘“‘ Except ye be circumcised and keep the 
whole law of Moses, ye cannot be saved;” but circumcision 
appears to have been connected with those ascetic austeri- 


XXXIV THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


ties by which purity of heart was sought for, symbolized, 
and expected to be reached. The apostle’s argument is, ye 
are circumcised already—ye have, through faith in Jesus, all 
the blessings which that ordinance typifies—ye have been 
circumcised with the circumcision of Christ. Distinctions in 
meats and drinks, the observance of holidays, “the show of 
wisdom in humility, will-worship, and neglecting of the 
body,” were not haughtily imposed as a Pharisaic yoke, but 
were regarded and cherished as elements of a discipline which 
hoped to attain religious elevation by a surer and speedier 
way than that which the gospel presented. The theoretic 
portion of the error was somewhat similar im origin and pur- 
pose. Its object was to secure spiritual protection, by com- 
muning with the world of spirits. It aimed to have what 
the gospel promised, but without the assistance of the Christ 
which that gospel revealed. It took Christ out of His central 
Headship, and dethroned Him from His mediatorial emin- 
ence. It was a philosophy which longed to uncover the 
unseen and climb to heaven by homage done to the angelic 
hierarchy. That such tendencies should coalesce in one and 
the same party is not strange, for self-emaciation has been 
usually connected with reverie and visions. 

We may scarcely put the question whether those errors had 
a heathen or a Jewish source. That they sprang up within 
/ the church we have seen already, but some suppose them 
traceable to a foreign influence. Clement ascribed them to 
Epicureanism; but indulgence and not self-restraint » was its 
character. It might indeed covet festivals, that it might 
enjoy a surfeit; but if it made a distinction among meats and 
drinks, it would be only to abstain from some of them, not 
for sanctity’s sake but for palate’s sake, and to prefer others 
not as lean and scanty fare to the neglect of the body, but as 
luxuries to revel in under the motto “let us eat and drink, for 
to-morrow we die.” ‘Tertullian again vaguely thought that 
philosophy in general with its theory and ethics was con- 
demned. But the apostle needed to guard the Colossians 
only against such forms of philosophic falsehood as were 
taught among them, and most likely to enthral them. See our 
comment on 11. 8. Grotius has contended that the Pythagorean 


PAUL AND PHILO. XXXV 


system is referred to, and Macknight has found it in the 
maxims “touch not, taste and handle not,” (that is, as he 
means,) anything the eating of which involves the previous 
taking away of its life. But Pythagoreanism could only in 
Colosse have an indirect influence through Plato and _ his 
Alexandrian imitators. That the language of Paul has some 
resemblance to that of Philo is well known, for modes of 
expression which at length were common among the Hellen- 
istic Jews may have originated in the studies and speculations 
of Alexandria. Yet any one who carefully reads Gfrérer’s 
Essay-on this subject, or the virtual review of it by Jowett,’ 
cannot fail to perceive, that with many features of likeness, 
there are very numerous points of dissimilarity. The spirit of 
the two writers is in perfect contrast; nay, the same words 
even have a difference of meaning in their respective produc-*+ 
tions. Yet with all his mysticism, Philo has much that every 
intelligent and pious Jew must have believed — forms of 
thought and faith that Paul did not need to renounce when he 
became a Christian. But to build much on mere verbal 
similarity is very unsatisfactory, for Késter has shown, in an 
ingenious Essay,” how much the apostle’s diction resembles 
that of Demosthenes ; and Bauer and Raphelius had before him 
pointed out similar instances from Thucydides and Xenophon. 
Heumann, again, pleads for the Stoic and Platonic philo- 
sophies as the object of apostolic warning, but with no pro- 
bability. When we remember the numbers of Jews colonized 
in those portions of Asia Minor, and how so many of them 
that passed over into the church were still zealous for the law, 
and when we see what nomenclature the apostle employs in 
describing these errors — “circumcision,” ‘“hand-writing of 
ordinances,” “festivals, new moons and Sabbaths,” “ a shadow 
of things to come,’—we are forced to the conclusion, that the 
false teaching pointed out and reprobated must have had a 
Jewish source, having grown up among those who had once 
observed the Levitical ritual, and who carried with them 


! The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, with Criti- 
cal Notes and Dissertations. By Benjamin Jowett, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol 
College, Oxford, vol. i. p. 363. 

2 Studien und Kritiken, 1854. 


ΧΧΧΥῚ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


into the church many of those predilections and tendencies 
which the idealized Mosaism of that age had originated and 
ripened. The application of the term “philosophy” to these 
errors, and the accusation of the ‘worshipping of angels,” 
form no argument against our hypothesis, for the Jewish 
writers apply the name to their own religious system, and 
traces of the strange idolatry may be found in later Jewish 
books.1 

The tendencies or teachings described by the apostle seem to 
be allied fully as much to the Essenic as to the Pharisaic school. 
Formality, ostentation, censoriousness, hypocrisy, and a right- 
eousness satisfied with obeying the mere letter of the law, are 
not hinted at by the apostle—the demure face on the day of 
fast, prayer in stentorian voice at the corner of the streets, and 
the trumpet which heralded alms-giving, are no portion of the 
picture. Rather does the description harmonize with what we 
know of the Essenes, and with what they might be if they em- 
braced Christianity. Ifthe Christianized Pharisees were apt to 
become Judaizers, the Christianized Essenes were as likely to Ὁ 
become mystics in doctrine and ascetics in practice. Recoiling 
from the precise formality of Pharisaism, they glided into im- 
palpable speculations. The Pharisee might boast of his sanctity 
in the outer court, but the Essene strove to pass the vail into 
the inner chamber and commune with its invisible inhabitant. 
What the Pharisee laboured to attain by the punctilious minu- 
{188 of a cumbrous ritual, the Essene hoped to reach by severe 
meditation and self-denying discipline. In short, the Essenes 
were philosophic Jews, who in trying to get at the spirit of 
their system, and to reach its hidden nature and esoteric teach- 
ings, wandered as far from its real purpose as did the sensual 
and pompous Pharisee. The Pharisee overlaid the law with 
traditions, so that it grew into an unshapen mass, and this ten- 
dency may be déscribed under the phrases “ elements of the 
, world,” and “tradition of men.” The Essene, on the other hand, 
was noted for his mystic aspirations, theosophic studies, and 
self-subduing modes of life, and these characteristics appear 
to be marked in the clauses, “ philosophy and vain deceit,” 


1 See our Commentary on ii. 8, 18. 


ESSENIC JUDAISM. XXXVil 


“worshipping of angels,” and intruding into the invisible; 
while both the Pharisaic and Essenic leanings combined may 
be thus glanced at: “ Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, 
or in respect of an holiday, or of the new-moon, or of the 
sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the 
body is of Christ,”—ii. 16,17. Now, while the Jews remained 
in Palestine, the two rival sects might maintain their separate 
creeds with proverbial tenacity; but when they were thrown 
together in foreign countries, their change of position must 
have brought them into more familiar contact, and led to the 
modification of their more distinctive tenets. Away from the 
hallowed soil and the temple, Pharisaism, unable to obey the 
ritual, must have lost somewhat of its love of externals, and be 
more ready to yield to the quiet speculations and self-restric- 
tions of the Essene. Such modifications we may not be able 
to trace, though we cannot doubt of their existence, and there- 
fore we need not wonder that a form of Christianized Judaism 
at Colosse should exhibit in combination some of those features 
. which in Palestine characterized respectively Pharisee and 
Sadducee. Nor is it to be forgotten that while their pecu- 
liarities were mutually modified between themselves, both 
might receive another modification from the external world. 
The Jewish mind had come into contact with the East 
during the Babylonish captivity, and probably retained some 
permanent impressions. We may therefore surmise that it 
was infected with the atmosphere of Phrygia, and that as it 
met in that province with speculations kindred to its own, it 
would both impart and borrow. ‘This appears then to be the 
true state of the case. While the errors seem to have sprung 
up with the Jewish converts, and to have retained not a little 
that belonged to the Mosaic ceremonial, they were at the same 
time in harmony with feelings and practices widely spread 
over the East, and of special attraction to the province of 
Phrygia. One might almost thus describe the heresy, that it 
was Hssenic Judaism modified by introduction to the church; 

widening itself from a national into an Oriental system thr one ) 
sympathy with similar views around it; in the act of identifying " 
its angels with Emanations, and Paes Christ among them; 
and admits or preparing to admit the sinfulness of what is 


XXXVI JHE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


materialin man. We need not, therefore, with Hug, ascribe the 
origin of the Colossian errors to the Magian philosophy directly: 
for it was rather the Jewish spirit influenced to some extent by 
this and other forms of theosophy with which it has been 
placed in juxtaposition. Nor should we, with Osiander, Kleu- 
ker, and Herder, deem the false teaching wholly Kabbalistic, 
though the germ of what was afterwards found in the Kabbala 
may be here detected. It is also a one-sided view of Chem- 
nitz, Storr, Credner, and Thiersch to regard the errorists simply 
as Christian Essenes, though in the Essene there was a strong 
and similar tendency. Nor can we, with Hammond and others, 
simply call them Gnostics, though there is no doubt that what 
‘\ was afterwards called Gnosticism appears here in its rudiments 
—especially that aspect of it which may be called Cerinthian 
Gnosticism. Similar errors are referred to in the Epistles to 
Timothy, who laboured in a neighbouring region. τ Cerinthus 
was but the creature of his age, bringing together into 
shape and system errors which were already showing them- 
selves in the various Christian communities, so that he soon 
became identified with them, and now stands out as an early 
and great heresiarch. But it would seem to be beyond historic 
evidence to fix on any precise party as holding those tenets. 
For the parties which afterwards did hold them were not then 
organized; nor were they known then by the names which 
they afterwards bore in the annals of the church. ‘The errors 
which in a century became so prominent as elements of an 
organized system, were at this time only in germ. The winged 
seeds were floating in the atmosphere, and falling into a soil 
adapted to them, and waiting as if to receive them; in course 
of years they produced an ample harvest. 

The apostle in the second chapter uniformly employs the 
singular number in speaking of the party holding the errors 
condemned by him. Either he.marks out one noted leader, 
or he merely individualizes for the sake of emphasis. The 
apostle in Galatians generally uses the plural; but in v. 10 
he employs the singular 6 ταράσσων, “ he that troubleth you,” 
where the reference may not be to some special heretic, but 


1 Einleit. Part ii. § 130. 4th edit. 


CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. ΧΧΧΙΧ 


to any of those whom the apostle’s imagination singles out for 
the moment as engaged in the act of disturbing the church. 
But the plural is never employed in the epistle before us; 
though the invariable use of the singular may not fully or 
grammatically warrant the idea of one person being specially 
before the apostle’s mind, since the singular occurs in admo- 
nitions, and these are rendered yet more pointed by its use. 


V.—CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


We present the contents of the epistle in the form of a 
translation, arranged under separate heads. Our translation 
is simply an easy rendering, claiming neither the exegetical 
lucidness of a free version nor the grammatical accuracy and 
purity of a literal one. 


The Salutation. 


Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and 
Timothy the brother, to the saints in Colosse, and believing 
brethren in Christ: Grace to you, and peace from God our 


Father. 
The Introduction. 


Having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love 
which ye have to all the saints, we thank God, the Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ always, when we pray for you; on 
account of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which 
ye heard already in the word of the truth of the gospel, 
which has come to you, as it has also in all the world; and is 
bearing fruit, and growing, as indeed among you, from the 
day ye heard it and knew the grace of God in truth, just as 
ye learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-servant, who 
is for your sakes a faithful minister of Christ, who has besides 
reported to us your love in the Spirit. 


The Prayer. 
On this account we indeed, since the day we heard (such 


a report,) cease not praying for you and asking that ye may 


be filled with the full knowledge of His will in all wisdom 


xl THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


and spiritual insight, so as to walk worthy of the Lord in 
order to all well-pleasing'—being fruitful in every good work, 
and erowing by means of the knowledge of God; strengthened 
with all strength after the measure of the might of His glory, 
in order to the possession of patience and long-suffering with 
joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has fitted us for shar- 
ing the inheritance of the saints in the light; who rescued 
us out of the power of darkness and transported us into the 
kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have this 
redemption,—the forgiveness of sins. 


Doctrine introduced.—The Glory of Christ. 


Who is the image of the Invisible God, the First-born of the 
whole creation. For in Him were created all thines—those in 
the heavens and those on the earth, the seen and the unseen, 
whether thrones or lordships, principalities or powers, the 
WHOLE by Him and for Him was created, and He is before 
all things, and all things in Him are upheld. And He is the 
Head of the Body, the church; He who is the Source, the 
First-begotten from the dead; in order that in all things He 
might show himself the First. Yea, God was pleased that 
all fulness should dwell in Him; and by Him having made 
peace by the blood of His cross; by Him (I repeat) to recon- 
cile all things to himself, whether the things on earth, or the 
things in the heavens. 

The Application of tt. 

And you, who were formerly alienated and enemies in your 
mind by wicked works, yet now has He reconciled in the body 
of His (Christ’s) flesh through death, so as to present you holy, 
and blameless, and unreprovable before Him. If, as is the 
case, ye continue in the faith grounded and fast, and not moved 
away from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, 


which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of 
which J, Paul, was made a minister. 


The Apostle’s own feelings and functions towards them. 
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up what is 


1 ¢¢ For general conciliation!” Turnbull’s translation. London, 1854. 
δ᾽ ? 


CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. xli 


wanting of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His Body’s 
sake, which is the church; of which I was made a minister 
according to the dispensation of God committed to me for you, 
to fulfil the word of God; to wit, the mystery which has been 
hid from ages and generations, but it is now revealed to his 
saints, to whom God wished to make known what are the 
riches of the glory of this mystery in the Gentiles, which 
is Christ in you, the hope of glory; whom we preach, 
reminding every man and teaching every man in all wisdom; 
in order that we may present every man perfect in Christ. 
To attain which end, I indeed labour, intensely strugeling 
according to His inworking, which works mightily within me. 
For I would that ye knew what a struggle I have about you and 
those in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in the 
flesh ; that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together 
in love and unto the whole wealth of the full assurance of 
understanding, to the full knowledge of the mystery of God; in 
which all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are laid up. 
eal 
First and General Advice. 

Now this I say, lest any one should beguile you with entic- 
ing words. For though, indeed, in the flesh I am absent, yet 
in the spirit with you am J, joying and beholding your order 
and the steadiness of your faith on Christ. As then, ye have 
received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him, having been 
rooted im Him, and being built up in Him, and established 
in the faith as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 


Second and Special Warning and Argument. 


Beware lest there be any one who may make a prey of you 
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, 
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in 
Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are 
filled up in Him, who is the Head of all principality and 
power. In whom also ye were circumcised with a circum- 
cision not made with hands in the off-putting of the body 
of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried 
with Him in baptism, in whom too you have been raised 


together by faith in the operation of God, who raised Him 
d 


xli THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


from the dead. And you being dead in the trespasses and the 
uncircumcision of your flesh, you hath He brought to life to- 
gether with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses ; having 
blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances which was against 
us, which was hostile to us, and He has taken it out of the 
way, having nailed it to the cross; having spoiled principalities 
and powers, He made a show of them openly, having triumphed 
over them init. Let no one, therefore, judge you in eating or 
in drinking, or in the particular of a festival, or of a new-moon, 
or of Sabbath-days, which are a shadow of the things to come, 
but the body is Christ’s. Let no one rob you of your reward, 
wishing to do it by his humility and worshipping of angels, 
penetrating into things which he has not seen, puffed up with- 
out reason by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from 
whom the whole body through joints and bands supplied and 
compacted groweth the growth of God. 


The consequent Reproof. 


Since with Christ ye have died off from the rudiments of 
the world, why, as yet living in the world, do ye suffer such 
ordinances to be published among you as “ touch not, taste not, 
handle not,” in reference to things which are meant to perish in 
the use—ordinances which have no higher authority than the 
commandments and the doctrines of men; which procedure, 
indeed, having a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, 
and neglecting of the body, not in any thing of value, only 
ministers to the gratification of the flesh’ (or corrupt human 
nature). 


Practical Portion.—Their Position and its Lessons. 


If, then, ye have been raised together with Christ, seek 
those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting on the 
right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on 
things on the earth; for you died, and your life has been 
hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, our Life, shall be 
manifested, then ye too shall be manifested with Him in glory. 


' “ Not to the credit of any one for personal appearance !”—Turnbull. 


INCULCATION OF DUTIES. xl 


Sins to be Abandoned. 


Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth, 
fornication, impurity, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, 
which, indeed, is idolatry, on account of which sins cometh 
the wrath of God, in which sins ye verily once walked, when 
ye lived in them. But now ye have even put off all these— 
anger, rage, malice, calumny, scurrility—out of your mouth. 
Lie not to one another, having put off the old man with his 
deeds, and having put on the new man, who is renewed unto 
knowledge, after the image of Him who created him; where 
(in which sphere of renewal) there is not Greek and Jew, 
circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, bond and 
free, but Christ is all and in all. 


Virtues to be Assumed. 


Put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of 
mercy, obligineness, humility, meekness, long-suffering, for- 
bearing one another and forgiving one another, if any one has 
a fault against any, like as indeed Christ forgave you, so also 
do ye; and over and above all these, put on that love which 
is the bond of perfection. 


What should be the tenor of the Christian life. 


And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which too 
ye were called in one body, and be thankful. Let the word 
of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and coun- 
selling one another; in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, singing 
with grace in your heart to God; and whatever ye do in word 
or deed, do all of it in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving 
thanks to God the Father by Him. 


Inculcation of Domestic Duties. 


Wives, submit you to your husbands, as is fitting in the | 
Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against 
them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is 
well-pleasing in the Lord. Fathers, chafe not your children, 
lest they be disheartened. Servants, in all things obey your 
masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service as men- 
pleasers, but with simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord. 


xliv THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Whatever you are engaged in, work at it from the soul as to 
the Lord, and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you 
shall receive the reward of the inheritance: the Lord Christ 
serve ye: for the wrong-doer shall receive what he has 
wronged; and there is no respect of persons. Masters, afford 
ye on your part what is right and equal to your servants, 
in the knowledge that ye too have a master in heaven. 


Parting Counsels. 


Continue in prayer, and watch in it with thanksgiving; 
praying at the same time also for us, that God would open to 
us a door of discourse to speak the mystery of Christ, for 
which yea I am bound, in order that I may make it manifest 
as it becomes me to speak it. Walk in wisdom toward those 
without, redeeming the time. Let your conversation be always 
with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how you 
ought to answer every one. 


Private Matters. 


Of all that concerns me, Tychicus shall inform you, the 
beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the 
Lord, whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that 
ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your 
hearts ; along with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, 
one of yourselves; they shall inform you of all matters here. 


Concluding Salutations and Signature. 


There salutes you Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner, and Mark, 
the cousin of Barnabas, (about whom ye received instruction ;) 
if he come to you, receive him; and Jesus, surnamed Justus 
—who are of the circumcision: these alone (of their race) 
are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, who have 
been an encouragement to me. LEpaphras, one of yourselves, 
a servant of Christ, salutes you, always striving for you in his 
prayers, that ye may stand perfect and full assured in the whole 
will of God. For I bear him record that he has a great travail 
for you and them in Laodicea and them in Hierapolis. There 
salutes you Luke the beloved physician, and Demas. Salute 
the brethren in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church in his 


WORKS ON THE EPISTLE. xlv 


house. And when this epistle has been read among you, 
arrange that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, 
and that ye read too the epistle from Laodicea. And say to 
Archippus, See to the ministry which thou hast received in the 
Lord that thou fulfil it. @be salutation bp mine ofon hand of 
Paul. Remember mp bonds. Girace be with pou. 


VI.—TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE. 


What we have already said in Chapter V. of our Introduc- 
tion to Ephesians may suffice. The arguments of Schulz, 
Béttger, Wiggers, Thiersch, and Meyer, do not convince us 
that the old and general opinion is wrong, and that this epistle 
was written at Cesarea, not at Rome. Peter Lombard and 
others dream of an imprisonment at Ephesus, at which place 
they suppose that this epistle was written. The probability is 
that it was composed in Rome, and about the year 62. On 
its relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians the reader may also 
consult the fifth chapter of our Introduction to Commentary on 
the latter Epistle. 


VII.—WORKS ON THE EPISTLE. 


The patristic and medieval commentaries on Colossians are, 
with the exception of Jerome, the same as those we have 
enumerated under Ephesians. So it is with the expositors of 
the Reformation period and that which succeeded it. So it is 
too with the editors of the New Testament, and the collectors 
of illustrations from the classics, Philo and Josephus. Among 
the more characteristic expositions, we have the French dis- 
course of Daillé and the more academic Latin prelections of 
Davenant, the paraphrase and notes of Pierce, the sermons of 
Byfield (1615), Elton (1620), and the more recent popular 
volumes of Bishop Wilson, Gisborne, and Watson. 

Among continental writers we may refer to Calvin, Melanc- 
thon, Beza, Erasmus, Janchius Zwingle, Crocius, Piscator, Hun- 
nius, Baldwin, the Catholic Estius and a-Lapide (van Stein), 
and to Grotius, Heumann, Suicer, Réell, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, 
and Heinrichs. 


ΧΙΝῚ THE LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Among later expositors we have the following :— 

Historisch-kritischer und philologischer Commentar tiber den 
Brief Pauli an die Colosser; bearbeitet von Dr. Friederich 
Junker; Mannheim, 1828. Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli 
an die Kolosser, mit steter Beriicksichtigung der dltern und 
neuern Ausleger; von Karl C. W. F. Bihr; Basel, 1833. 
Theologische Auslegung des paulinischen Sendschreibens an die 
Colosser; herausgegeben von Wilhelm Bohmer; Breslau, 1835. 
Der Brief Pauli an die Kolosser; Uebersetzung, Erklirung, 
einleitende und epikritische Abhandlungen von Wilhelm Stei- 
ger; Erlangen, 1835. Commentar δον den Brief Pauli an 
die Colosser; von Joh. Ed. Huther; Hamburg, 1841. Kurze 
Frklérung der Briefe an die Colosser, an Philemon, an die 
Ephesier und Philipper; von Dr. W. M. 1, de Wette; 
Leipzig, 1843. Biblischer Commentar iiber sémmtliche Schrif- 
ten des Neuen Testaments zundchst fiir Prediger und Studirende; 
von Dr. Hermann Olshausen; Vierter Band; Kdénigsberg, 
1844. Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser und 
Kolosser; von L. F. Ὁ. Baumgarten-Crusius; Jena, 1847. 
Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch εἶδον den Brief an die Kolos- 
ser und an Philemon; von Hein. A. W. Meyer; Gittingen, 
1848. Auslegung der Epistel Pauli an die Colosser in 36 
Betrachtungen; von C. N. Kiihler; Eisleben, 1853. 


NOTE. 


In the following pages, when Buttmann, Matthiae, Kiihner, 
Winer, Rost, Alt, Stuart, Green, Trollope, and Jelf are 
simply quoted, the reference is to their respective Greek gram- 
mars; and when Suidas, Passow, Robinson, Pape, Wilke, 
Wahl, Bretschneider, Liddell and Scott, are named, the refer- 
ence is to their respective lexicons. If Hartung be found 
without any addition, we mean his Lehre von den Partikeln 
der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols.; Erlangen, 1832. In the same 
way, the mention of Bernhardy without any supplement re- 
presents his Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache; 
Berlin, 1829. The majority of the other names are those of 
the commentators or philologists enumerated in the previous 
chapter. The references to Tischendorf’s New Testament are 
to the second edition. 


Me 
Aus χω 
f 


“eta 


0 ye 
“4 
ae 
» | y 
% ag 


COMMENTARY ON COLOSSIANS. 


CHAPTER 1. 


THE Epistle begins according to ancient custom. The 
writer introduces himself by name, and then salutes those to 
whom his letter is addressed, thus— 

(Ver. 1.) Παῦλος, ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος 
Θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος & adeApoc— Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ 
by the will of God, and Timothy the brother.” [Ephes. 1. 1; 
iv. 11.] Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, as he bore His 
commission, enjoyed His inspiration, did His work, and in all 
things sought His acceptance. His call to the apostleship 
was by asignal and unmistakeable summons of the Divine 
will. Since he uses similar phraseology in so many of his 
epistles, there is no foundation for the conjecture of Chrysostom, 
and some of his Greek imitators, that the apostle in here assert- 
ing his relation to Christ so decidedly, disclaims all mission from 
the inferior spirits that occupied so prominent place in the 
angelology of the false teachers who attempted to corrupt the 
Colossian church. The addition of the name of Timothy is 
found in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in that to the 
Philippians, and to Philemon, while it stands along with that 
of Silvanus in the salutations of both letters addressed to the 
church in Thessalonica. Though Timothy may have been the 
writer of this epistle, neither his name nor his pen gave any 
warrant or authority to the document, for he is only joined 
with the apostle in brotherly, but unofficial congratulations 
and prayers over the welfare of the Colossian believers. It is 
certainly rash.on the part of Chrysostom and Theophylact’ to 
infer that Timothy was to be honoured as an apostle, because 


1 The conclusion of Theophylact is ἄρα οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπόστολος. 


2 COLOSSIANS I. 2. 


his name stands in this connection. Were such an argument 
tenable, then Sosthenes and Silvanus might both be elevated 
to the apostolate. Paul styles him, however, ‘a minister of 
God, and our fellow-labourer in the gospel of Christ,” 1 Thess. 
i. 2. 

Timothy, who received this Greek name from his father, 
though his mother was a Jewess, was in all probability a 
native of Lystra.1_ That he was one of the apostle’s own 
converts is highly probable, as he has so fondly named 
him “son,” “my own son,” “my beloved son,” “my dearly 
beloved, son,” .1 Tim: 1. 18; i::2;,1.Cor. ivi 14; 2 Tima 
The young disciple was “well reported of by the brethren,” 
had enjoyed an early and sound religious education, the result 
of maternal, and grand-maternal anxiety, and he possessed a 
“‘ oift,” so that Paul, after circumcising him, in order to allay 
Jewish prejudice, selected him to be his colleague, fellow- 
traveller, and work-fellow. Ata later period the apostle bore 
him this high testimony—“ he worketh the work of the Lord 
as I also do” *—affirms at another time that both of them 
preached the same gospel of the Son of God;* nay, so much 
of a kindred spirit reigned within them, that he says to the 
church in Philippi, “I have no man like-minded, who will 
naturally care for your state,” Philip. 1.19, 20. Indications 
of Timothy’s busy and ubiquitous career occur again and 
again, and he received himself, from his spiritual father, two 
solemn epistolary communications. In short, so well known 
was he as “the Brother,” doing the apostle’s work, carrying 
his messages, bringing correspondence to him, endeared to 
him in so many ways, and representing him in his absence, 
that tie church of Colosse could not wonder at his name 
being associated with that of Paul. 

(Ver. 2.) Τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν 
Xpiorm— to the saints in Colosse and believing brethren in 
Christ.” For the various forms of spelling the name of the 
city, see Introduction. According to the versions of Chrysos- 
tom, Cicumenius, De Wette, and others, the apostle thus 
addresses his letter: ‘to those in Colosse who are saints and 


1 Acts xvi. 1. 31 Cor. xvi. 10. 3 2 Cor. i. 19, 


COLOSSIANS I. 2. 3 


believing brethren in Christ;” but, according to Meyer, “to 
the saints in Colosse, to wit, the believing brethren in Christ.” 
We incline to the latter mterpretation, as the epithet ἅγιος 
came to have something of the force of a proper name, and did 
not need ἐν X. to qualify it. It, indeed, often stands by itself, 
as in Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; xxvi. 10; in Rom. 1. 7; xii. 13; 
xy. 25, 26, 31, and in a great variety of instances in the other 
epistles. True, in Philippians 1. 1, the words ἐν X. I. are 
added to it, and that probably because no other epithet is 
there subjoimed. When these early disciples are named, or 
referred to, the term ἅγιος, like the English “saint,” was 
almost invariably used, not as an adjective, but as a noun. 
For the meaning of the word, and its application to members 
of the church, see under Ephes.i.1. The other terms of the 
clause are explanatory and supplemental. The adjective 
πιστοῖς, which occurs by itself in the twin epistle, is here 
joined to adsAgoic, and has the sense of believing, as we have 
shown it to have in the similar salutation, Ephes.i.1. The 
concluding words, ἐν Χριστῷ, belonging to the entire clause, 
describe the origin and circuit of the believing brotherhood. 
Their union to Him created this tender and reciprocal con- 
nection in Him. Out of Him there was neither faith nor 
fraternity, for He is the object of the one and the centre of the 
other. Thus πιστοῖς is not superfluous, as Steiger erroneously 
says, if it mean “believing;” for this faith was the very 
means of bringing them into a filial relation to God, and 
therefore into a brotherly relation with one another. (Gal. iii. 
26.) Children of one Father by belief in Christ, the entire 
family are rightly named “ believing brethren” in Him. 

Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς huwv— grace to 
you and peace, from God our Father.” The additional clause 
of the Received Text, καὶ κυρίου I. X. is not fully sustained by 
good authority, as it is wanting in B, D, E, J, K, while it is 
found in A, C, F, G. Many of the old versions also want it 
—as the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate. Chrysostom formally 
says: καίτοι ἐν ταύτῃ τὸ τοῦ X. ov τίθησιν Gvowa—“ yet in this 
place he does not insert the name of Christ.” Theophylact, on 
repeating the sentiment, adds—xairo: εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ dv— 
‘although it is his usual way to insert it;” but he subjoins a 


ev 


4 COLOSSIANS I. 3. 


silly reason for the omission, to wit, ‘‘ Lest the apostle should 
revolt them at the outset, and turn their minds from his forth- 
coming argument.” The clause is common in the other 
opening benedictions. We can account for its insertion in 
some Codices as being taken from these corresponding pas- 
sages, but we cannot so well give a reason for its general 
omission, except on the suspicion that it was no portion of the 
original salutation. We dare not dictate to the apostle how 
he shall greet a church, nor insist that he shall send all his 
greetings in uniform terms. [Ephes. 1. 2.] 

The apostle now expresses his thanks to God for the 
Colossian church, for their faith, love, and hope—the fruits of 
that gospel which Epaphras had so successfully taught them. 
Then he repeats the substance of that prayer which he had 
been wont to offer for them, a prayer that designedly cul- 
minates in a statement of their obligation to Christ, and their 
connection with Him. But that Blessed Name suggests a 
magnificent description of the majesty of His person, and the 
glory of His work as Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and 
Governor. The paragraph is without any formal polemical 
aspect, but under its broad and glowing statement of the truth 
error was detected and refuted. It was so placed in sunshine, 
that its hideousness was fully exposed, and it was seen to be 
‘a profane medley ”! 

(Ver. 3.) Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντοτε, περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι--- 
“We bless God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ always, 
when praying for you.” There are variations in the text, 
some of which may be noted. Some read τῷ πατρὶ on no 
great authority, and the Received Text inserts καί without 
conclusive evidence. Other MSS. read as if by correction 
εὐχαριστῷ in the singular, and περί, found in A, C, D®, EK’, J, 
K, appears to have higher warrant than ὑπέρ, which is pre- 
ferred by Lachmann and Griesbach. The distinctive meaning 
of ὑπέρ and περί in such a connection may be seen under Ephes. 
vi. 19. We cannot agree with Biihr, Steiger, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and Conybeare, who imagine that Paul simply means 


1“ Mélange profane.” —Daille. 


COLOSSIANS I. 3. 5 


hinself in the plural εὐχαριστοῦμεν. That he may occasionally 
use this style we do not deny. The apostle in the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians joins Sosthenes with himself in the 
salutation, but formally excludes him from any share in the 
communication, for he immediately subjoins the singular εὐχαρ- 
tcor@. The same avowed distinction is made with regard to 
Timothy himself in the Epistle to the Philippians i. 1—2. 
May we not infer, that if Paul had wished to exclude Timothy 
here, he would have done so by a similar use of the singular ; 
and as he does afterwards employ the singular in sharp con- 
trast, may not the plural here have been chosen to represent the 
share which Timothy had in those good reports, and the con- 
sequent prayers? ‘There is no sentiment in the verses in which 
the plural is used, peculiar to inspiration. And we are the 
more confirmed in this view, because Paul formally disconnects 
himself from Timothy in verse 23, and by the emphatic words, 
ἐγὼ Παῦλος; and again a similar distinction occurs in verse 
29, and iniv. 3. The phraseology of these three verses implies, 
that when he says “we,” he means himself and Timothy, but 
that in cases where he states something special to himself, and 
not common to him and his colleague, he says “I,” to prevent 
mistake. If the plural simply represented himself, he did not 
need to change the idiom. [Εὐχαριστοῦμεν, Ephes. i. 16]. 
Under Ephes. 1. ὃ we have shown that the genitive κυρίου I. 
is governed as well by θεός as by πατήρ. And if we read 
τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ, as in the Textus Receptus, the same con- 
struction would be vindicated here. But as the reading is 
either τῷ θεῷ τῷ πατρὶ, or rather τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ, it would seem 
that πατρί alone governs the following genitive. We thank 
God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Πατρὶ τοῦ x. 
Ephes. i. 3.] Beza well says, negue vero aliter a nobis con- 
siderart potest Deus in salutem nisi quatenus est Pater Christi. 
It is God, in the character of the Father of Christ, that we 
thank, for He is in this relation our Father-God. The grateful 
heart pours itself forth in praises. Paul and Timothy, on 
hearing of the spiritual progress of the Colossians, did not 
congratulate one another, but both gave the glory to God. 
So much had Timothy of Paul’s own spirit, that the apostle 
had no hesitation im saying, “ We thank God.” 


0 COLOSSIANS I. 3. 


It is a matter of dispute whether πάντοτε should be joined 
to εὐχαριστοῦμεν, OY to προσευχόμενοι. Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact, Grotius, Piscator, Beza, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Suicer, 
Grotius, Bohmer, and Olshausen, hold the second view, and 
render with the English version, “praying always for you.” 
But if we follow the analogy of 1 Cor. i. 4, 1 Thess. i. 2, 
2 Thess. 1. 38, Philem. 4, Ephes. i. 16, we shall jom πάντοτε 
to the first verb. So think Bihr, Pierce, Meyer, De Wette, 
and Baumgarten-Crusius. The Syriac version follows the 
same exegesis—for it reads, “we give thanks for you always, 
and pray for you;” and Cranmevr’s Bible of 1539—‘“ we 
give thanks to God alwayes for you in oure prayers.” Be- 
sides, the declaration is, that the intelligence which he had 
received filled his heart with gratitude, and impelled him 
to give thanks. The Colossians did not need to be told 
that he prayed for them, but it was some comfort to be 
assured by him, that when he did pray for them such was his 
opinion of them, based on reports which he had received 
about them, that he gave thanks to God for them. He would 
have prayed for them, whatever their spiritual state, and the 
worse it was, the more importunate would have been his 
supplications, but he would not have given thanks for them 
unless he had been persuaded of their spiritual purity and 
progress. ‘Therefore he adduces these reports as the grounds 
of his thanksgivings; and the spirit of his language is— 
“whenever we pray about you, we always give thanks for 
you.” So cheering was the intelligence communicated by 
Epaphras, that thanksgiving was uniformly mingled with his 
prayers for them, and the special contents of those prayers 
are mentioned for the first time in verse 9. This exegesis is 
far more natural than that of Olshausen, who says that the 
thanksgiving is offered at the moment, but the intercession is 
supposed to be going on, and to be based on the tidings which 
he had received. Now, those tidings did not create the 
prayer, but being so good, they naturally induced the thanks- 
giving. ‘We always give thanks to God, the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, as often as we pray for you, because we 
have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and love to all the 
saints.” 


COLOSSIANS I. 4. 7 


Περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενο  ----- “praying for you.” The 
apostle prayed for them—such was his interest in them, 
and sympathy with them, that he bore their names on his 
heart to the throne of grace. Nor could such an “ effectual 
fervent prayer of a righteous man” be without its rich results. 
The suppliant in his far off prison was like the prophet on 
Carmel, and as he prayed, the “little cloud” might be descried, 
which, as it gradually filled and darkened the horizon, brought 
with it the “sound of abundance of rain.” 

(Ver. 4.) ᾿Ακούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, καὶ 
τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. The words ἣν 
ἔχετε are introduced into the text on the concurrent authority 
of A, C, θ᾽, E’, F, G, the Vulgate, and other versions, with 
many of the Fathers. The apostle now expresses the reason 
why he gave thanks, the participle having a causal sense, 
Kiihner, § 667; Stuart, § 169. Similar phraseology occurs 
in Ephes. 1. 15. The article is omitted before the proper 
names X. I. Winer, ὃ 19,2. In Ephesians, the apostle adds 
κύριος, and prefixes the article to the official epithet; but 
here the simple name X. I. from common usage, occurs without 
it. Gal. 11.26. A different form of construction, inserting the 
article before the preposition—miore τῇ ἐν X. I.—occurs 1 
Tim. i. 13, and similarly 2 Tim. i. 13. That faith reposed in 
Christ Jesus—fixed and immovable—for it felt satisfied in 
Him as a Divine Saviour. [Ephes.i.1.] Paul’s heart had been 
gladdened by the news of their consistency and _ spiritual 
advancement, and in the fulness of his joy he offered thanks 
to God. It is not necessary, with Locke and Pierce, to take 
πίστις in the sense of fidelity, “sticking to the grace of God.” 
And their love was universal in its sweep, not toward all men, 
but toward all the saints. [ἅγιος, Ephes.i.1]. In itself, this 
love is really only a form, or manifestation of love to the 
Divine object of their faith, for it is affection to Christ’s image 
in the saints. As though a miuror is broken, each fragment 
will still throw out the same reflection in miniature, and that 
perfectly, so the saints, as a body, and individually, exhibit the 
same blessed and divine image of Christ enshrined with them, 
and are therefore the objects of Christian love. Who is not 
acquainted with the language of Tertullian ?—Sed ejusmodi vel 


ὃ COLOSSIANS I. 5. 


maxime dilectionis operatio notam nobis inurit penes quosdam, 
vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant.’ 

(Ver. 5.) Aca τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοὶς 
ovpavoic— On account of the hope laid up for you im 
heaven.” It is not easy to fix precisely on the connection 
between this clause and the preceding statement. It is a lame 
and superficial exegesis simply to say that the apostle merely 
alludes to his three favourite graces, faith, love, and hope. 

But 1. Grotius, Wolf, Davenant, Estius, Pierce, Olshausen, 
De Wette, Bihr, Heinrichs, and the Socinian expositors, 
Crellius and Slichting, connect it with the two preceding 
clauses, as if it told the reason why faith and love were 
formed and cherished within them—your faith in Christ, and 
love to all the saints—graces possessed and nurtured “in con- 
sequence of the hope laid up for you in heaven.” With such 
a view, the connection appears to be elliptical, and not very 
clearly expressed in the language before us. Nor do we think 
it a Pauline sentiment. The apostle’s references to future glory 
are not of this nature, and we cannot regard him as placing 
faith and love on so selfish a basis as the mere hope of a 
coming recompense ; for Christ is worthy of that faith, and 
saints, from their very character, elicit that love. The evan- 
gelical expositors who hold this view have to maintain a stout 
protest against the idea that they favour the Popish doctrine 
of merit. Davenant formally proposes the question, “ whether 
it be lawful to do good works with a view to, or for the reward 
laid up in heaven?” 

2. A modified and more tenable view is held by Chrysos- 
tom, and some of the Greek Fathers, as well as Estius, Calvin, 
Macknight, Meyer, and Steiger, who refer διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα 
solely to ἀγάπην, as if the meaning were, this love is not 
cherished under the expectation of any immediate return, 
but in the hope of ultimate remuneration. Still, under 
this hypothesis, the connection appears strained. If the 
apostle had said that they loved one another on account 
of the common hope which they had in heaven, or that 
the prospect of a joint inheritance deepened their attach- 


1 Apologeticum, xxxix. p. 260, Opera, Tom. 1; ed. Oehler, Lipsiae, 1853. 


COLOSSIANS I. 5. 9 


ments on their journey towards it, then the meaning might 
have been easily apprehended. But why the hope in itself 
should be selected as the prop of such love, we know not. 
Was their love to all the saints so selfish, that it could live 
only in expectation of a future reward? We do not deny 
the Christian doctrine of rewards, but we cannot put so selfish 
a valuation on Christian love as this exegesis implies, for of all 
the graces, it has the least of self in its nature, and its instinc- 
tive gratification is its own disinterested reward. 

3. We incline, then, to take the words διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα with 
the initial verb εὐχαριστοῦμεν. “Having heard of your faith 
in Christ Jesus, and the love which ye have to all the saints, 
as often as we pray for you, we thank God, the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the hope laid up for you in 
heaven.” That is to say, the report of their faith and love 
prompted him to give thanks, but as he gave thanks, the final 
issue and crown of those graces rose into prominence before” 
him, and he adds, “on account of the hope laid up for you in 
heaven.” Their faith and love, viewed not merely in present 
exercise, but also in their ultimate consummation and bliss, 
were the grounds of his thanksgiving. The hope, as Bengel 
suggests, shows quanta sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fider 
et amoris. ‘The fourth verse can scarcely be called a paren- 
thesis. This view is, generally, that of Athanasius, Bullinger, 
Calixtus, Elsner, Cocceius, Storr, Zanchius, Bengel, Schrader, 
Peile, and Conybeare. Meyer objects that in the other 
epistles the foundations of thanksgiving are subjective in their 
nature. Nor is this phraseology, when properly viewed, any 
exception. For faith and love are not excluded from the 
grounds of thanksgiving, and hope laid up is not wholly 
objective, as it signifies a blessing so sure and attainable that it 
creates hope. Had the apostle said, “for the happiness laid 
‘up,’ the objection of Meyer might have applied, but he calls 
it “hope laid up ”—a reality which excites and sustains the 
emotion of hope in the present state. It is further argued 
that εὐχαριστεῖν is never used in the New Testament with διά 
to express the ground of thanksgiving. It is so; but unless 
the objector can produce a parallel place to this, there is really 
no difficulty. If a writer means to express a different shade 


10 COLOSSIANS I. 5. 


of idea, he will use a different preposition. Neither ὑπέρ nor 
ἐπί conveyed the precise idea of the clause before us. These 
prepositions would have denoted that the hope was in itself 
the great ground of gratitude; but the apostle, in using διά, 
says, that the hope, while it is so noble and promising, has a 
special and ultimate connection with the faith and love, the 
report of which so cheered his heart The hope was present 
to his mind when he said εὐχαριστοῦμεν, but other and sub- 
ordinate thoughts intervene, and his idea is so far modified, 
that when he came to write ἐλπίδα, he prefixes διά. 

"EAmic is the object hoped for—ré ἐλπιζόμενον. [Ephes. 1. 
18.] In τὴν ἀποκειμένην is the idea of reservation and security. 
(Luke xix. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 8; 1 Pet.i.4.)' It is not enjoyed 
now—but it exists now; it is kept in store, and will certainly 
be possessed. And it is laid up ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς “in the 
heavens ”—in that high region of felicity and splendour—at 
God’s right hand, which guards it, and in the presence of 
Christ, who won it, and will bestow it. And this heavenly 
glory is an object of hope to them who possess this faith and 
love for these good reasons :—1. It is future—as it is not yet 
enjoyed, but it is lying over; “hope that is seen is not hope.” 
2. It is future good, for it is in heaven, the scene of all that is 
fair and satisfying. Coming evil excites terror, but distant 
good creates hopeful desire and anticipation. For it is the 
unimagined glory of spiritual perfection, of livmg in the 
unshaded radiance of God’s face, and in uninterrupted fellow- 
ship with Him, and the thronging myriads round about Him 
—the signet of eternity stamped on every enjoyment. 3. 
Such future good is attainable. Were it completely beyond 
reach, it might excite a romantic wish in one heart, and 
cover another with despair. But the apostle says it is laid 
up for you. It will therefore be enjoyed, for Christ has 
given His pledge. This faith, too, will elevate the spirit to 
heaven, and that love will prepare it for those supreme enjoy- 


ments, 
“For love is heaven, and heaven is love.” 


“a ~ ~ ~ 
Hy προηκούσατε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ evayyeAtou— 


1 Loesner, Observ. ad N. T. p. 360. 


COLOSSIANS I. 5. 11 


‘Of which ye have already heard in the word of the truth of 
the gospel.” ‘The verb occurs only in this place of the New 
Testament, but it is found in Herodotus, Xenophon, and Jose- 
phus.' In the προ compounded with the verb, De Wette and 
Olshausen think that the meaning is—they had heard of the 
hope in promise before the enjoyment of it. Such an exegesis 
is a species of truism, since they must have heard before they 
could cherish it. Therefore the interpretation of Meyer is 
equally objectionable—before ye had this hope, it was made 
known to you, it was communicated to you asanovelty. Nor 
can we say, generally, that the sense is—ye have heard of it 
before I now write it. But the meaning seems to be—that the 
hope laid up in heayen was, and had been, a prominent topic of 
preaching, and therefore an invariable topic of hearing in the 
Christian church. That πρὸ has the sense of “already” we have 
shown fully under Ephes. 1. 12. It is as if he meant to say—I 
need not expatiate on this hope, bright and glorious though it 
be; you are not unacquainted with it, for in the earliest 
teachings of the gospel when it came to you, ye heard of it— 
heard of it— 

Ἔν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας. We cannot agree with Chrysos- 
tom, Erasmus, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, Storr, and others, 
in giving the genitive an adjectival sense, as if the meaning 
were “the true and genuine gospel.” The noun ἀληθείας is 
made prominent by the article prefixed to it, and the idiom de- 
notes that “the truth” was the sum and substance of the λόγος͵, 
or oral communication made to them by the first teachers of 
Christianity. Λόγος refers to the fact that their first teaching 
was oral, and not epistolary, or by inspired manuscript; and 
this “ word,” or verbal tuition, had the truth for its pith and 
marrow. But the form of truth which had been presented to 
their minds was no common aspect of it. It belonged, not to 
philosophy or human speculation—it was the truth τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίου “of the gospel.” This genitive is not in apposition 
with τῆς ἀληθείας, as Calvin, Beza, Olshausen, De Wette, 
Béhmer, and Huther suppose, but it has its distinctive meaning 
—the truth which belongs to the gospel, or is its peculiar and 


1 Robinson, Lericon, sub voce. Raphelius, Annot. Sac. vol. li. p. 520. 


12 COLOSSIANS I. 6. 


characteristic message. [ἀληθεία, εὐαγγέλιον, Ephes. i. 13.] 
“The word of the truth of the gospel” could alone reveal the 
nature and the certainty of future and celestial blessedness. 
The idea and expectation of spiritual felicity and glory in 
heaven are not connected with the sciences of earth, which 
deal so subtly with the properties and relations of mind and 
matter. These forms of knowledge and discovery lead but to 
the lip of the grave, and desert us amidst the dreary wail of 
dust to dust and ashes to ashes, but the truth contained in the 
gospel throws its radiance beyond the sepulchre, unvails the 
portals of eternity, and discloses the reality, magnitude, and 
character of “the hope laid up in heaven.” And, therefore, 
every blessing which the gospel makes known has futurity in 
its eye—an eye that pierces beyond the present horizon; and 
the Christian life, in the meantime, is one as much of expec- 
tation as of positive enjoyment. 

(Ver. 6.) Τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς, καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ 
κόσμῳ--“ Which has come to you, as it has come in all the 
world.” * The participle is used with πρός in Acts xu. 20; 2 
Cor. xi. 8; Gal. iv. 18, 20, in which instances the presence 
of persons is referred to, both in subject and object. Here it 
is followed by εἰς in the first clause, and ἐν in the second 
clause. In the one, by εἰς the idea of travel prior to ad- 
vent is implied; in the other, by ἐν, the notion of simple pre- 
sence is affirmed, Kiihner, § 622. The gospel had come to 
them, was brought to them, and was now with them, or 
in their possession. (2 Pet.i.9.) Or, as Theophylact says, οὐ 
παρεγένετό, φησιν, πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἀπέστη, αλλὰ πάρεστι Kal 
κρατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. This idea suggested the Coptic rendering 
Par eTujwn—‘ which abideth or dwelleth.” And surely 
such a gift they would keep as their own, prize highly, 
love dearly, and never suffer it to be contaminated with 
popular errors, or exchange it for those mystical reveries 
which were broached among them. For while the errors 
which the apostle is about to reprobate were limited in their 
origin and popularity, this gospel was “in all the world.” 

1 Raphelius, Annotat. ii. 525, 526; Krebs, Observat. 333: the former showing 


from the classics, and the latter from Josephus, that in xdégzs is the notion of 
arrival. Passow, sub voce. 


COLOSSIANS I. 6. 19 


We see no necessity for choosing a new verb, and supplying 
the simple ἔστιν, while πάρεστι is suggested at once by the 
preceding clause. It was in all the world, because it had 
come to it. It was not indigenous in any country, but was 
there, merely because it had been carried there. This expres- 
sion is not to be scanned with narrow minuteness. We cannot, 
with Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, look upon it as a pro- 
phetic or ideal statement; nor can we, with Michaelis, limit 
it to the Roman empire. The phrase is similarly used by 
Paul in Romans i. 8. That world which lay all round about 
them—those countries which to them were the world, and 
were by them so named, had been brought into contact with 
the gospel. It arose in Judea, but burst its narrow barriers, 
and came forth with world-wide adaptation, offers, and enter- 
prise. The labours of the other apostles in so many countries 
of the East and West warranted the phraseology. 

Καὶ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανύμενον. 

Καὶ is omitted by Lachmann, and Griesbach is virtually of 
the same opinion. It is wanting in A, B, C, D!, ἘΠ, in several 
Minuscules, and in the Coptic and Sahidic versions; but it is 
found in D*, E*, F, G, J, K, the Vulgate, and Syriac, and in the 
Greek Fathers. The authority of Codices against it is almost 
balanced by that of Codices in its favour. The words καὶ 
αὐξαν. are added to the Stephanic text on the evidence of A, 
B, C, D', E’, F, G, J, and many other concurrent witnesses, 
such as almost all the Versions. Were the first καί not gen- 
uine, there would be a vital change of syntax. But with it 
there is only acommon change. Kiihner, ὃ 863; Winer, ὃ 64.’ 


1 Olshausen thus states the case :—“‘ Here the connection of the words is disputable, 
in consequence of the different readings; St. Paul’s discourse proceeds with καθῶς 
καὶ thrice repeated: it is true, the καὶ is wanting in the third, in very many and 
important MSS., but the omission is far more explicable, because it had already been 
put twice before, than the addition of it. But then A, C, D, read in the beginning 
of verse 6 καθῶς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἔστι καρποφορούμενον. By that reading the 
proposition καθὼ:-- κόσμῳ is separated from what precedes, and joined with what 
follows, which brings with it the great inconvenience that then the words καθὼς καὶ 
ἐν ὑμῖν do not fit the beginning of the proposition καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῶ κόσμῳ, since 
the Colossians are to be conceived as included of course with the rest in the whole 
world. It is with reason, therefore, that Steiger, Bahr, and others, have retained xx} 


ἔστι κάρποφορούμενον, and supplied ἔσσι at καθὼς καὶ tv παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ." 


14 COLOSSIANS I. 6. 


The reading we adopt frees the text from much entan- 
glement of thought and diction. That gospel in all the 
world was no idle and barren speculation—a tinted cloud 
without rain, or a polished cistern without water. Or rather, 
it was as a tree—yielding his fruit in his season: whose leaf 
never fadeth. The gospel bore choice and noble clusters of 
fruit. It is not a ceremonial to be gazed at, or a congeries 
of opinions to be discussed. It is essentially a practical 
system, for its ethics are involved in its creed and worship. 
It makes the heart its home, and diffuses its control and its 
impulses over thought and action, over motive and life. That 
fruit is the assemblage of graces which adorn the Christian 
character. 

The reference in καὶ av&av. is variously understood. Gro- 
tius, Olshausen, and Steiger, refer it to internal growth, or the 
erowing and ripening of the fruits themselves. We prefer 
the idea of the Greek Fathers, for Theodoret explains it thus 
—avénow δὲ τῶν πιστευόντων τὸ πλῆθος, that is, the growth 
is the external diffusion of the gospel. That fruit-bearing 
gospel was extending itself. To keep the figure of the apostle, 
it was like a tree, whose fruit, falling to the earth, germinated, 
so that there sprang up a youthful and healthy forest on all 
sides of it, or like the Eastern banian, whose tall boughs, as 
they bend themselves in a graceful curve to the ground, 
enter it, and fastening in it a new root, rise up again in ver- 
dure, and on reaching the requisite height, stoop as before 
and repeat the same process of self-plantation, till field upon 
field is covered with the progeny of its arches and alcoves. 
Thus did the gospel make progress—the disciples preached it 
around them, and their converts becoming preachers in turn, 
widened the circle of its influence and conquests. Acts xii. 
24; xix. 20. Καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν--- 85. indeed among you.” 
What the gospel produced and achieved in the world, it pro- 
duces and achieves among you. It exhibited the same 
vitality, fruitfulness, and power of self-diffusion in Colosse, 
as in the regions round about it. And those elements 
of the gospel had not been of slow production, or of periodical 
manifestation—it, says Paul, had been so among you— 


5 Sm (eee ΟῚ ’ iD τὰ Ἂν ΄ ~ ~ 
Ad ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε Kal ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν TOV Θεοῦ 


COLOSSIANS I. 6. 15 


ἐν aAnbcta— From the day ye heard it, and knew the 
grace of God in truth.” This peculiar form of elliptical 
construction by the incorporation of the noun into the rela- 
tive clause is not uncommon; Winer, § 24; Bernhardy, 
p- 802. The accusative to the first verb ἠκούσατε, is εὐαγγέ- 
λιον. It was the gospel which they had heard. This was the 
external and audible form of that grace which they had been 
privileged to know. It was by hearing it, or by verbal in- 
struction about it that they had become acquainted with it. 
The preposition ἐπί, with γινώσκω, has an intensive sense, as 
has been proved by us under Ephes.i.17. By hearing the 
gospel they had come to know fully the grace of God—for the 
grace of God is the essence of the gospel, or the glorious fact 
which it communicates. It is the good news that God has in 
His sovereign favour pitied and blessed the world, and con- 
ferred upon it an unmerited and unexpected salvation—that 
while He might have punished, He resolved to pardon—that 
when he might have permitted the law to take its course, He 
has founded an economy of grace which man had no right to 
anticipate, and Himself was under no obligation to introduce. 
In every element of the gospel, in its pardon and purity, in 
its hope and life, in its means as well as in its offers of de- 
liverance, in its application no less than its provision of 
saving blessings, in its precepts as much as in its privileges, 
there is felt and known in its peculiar ascendancy and fulness, 
“the grace of God.” [χάρις, Ephes. u. 8.] 

The last words, ἐν ἀληθ. are connected in various ways. 1. 
Some give the phrase the force of an adjectival epithet, and join 
it to yaoic—‘‘the true grace” of God. Such is the view of Storr, 
Homberg, Pierce, Barnes, and Baumgarten-Crusius. This in- 
terpretation is without point. 2. Grotius and Musculus depart 
still farther from the true syntax by their paraphrase—“ the 
grace of God revealed in the word of truth.” 3. Beza, 
Crocius, Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, De Wette, Meyer, and 
Winer, join the phrase to the verb, “and truly or really ἢ 
knew the grace of God. The knowledge possessed by the 
Colossians is thus supposed to be distinguished from a false 
or fictitious knowledge of the Divine grace. 4. We prefer, 
with Bahr and Calvin, a different shade of the same exegesis, 


10 COLOSSIANS I. 7. 


giving to the phrase an objective meaning, as if the apostle 
meant to say—the grace which they knew had been presented 
to them “in its truth,” for they had learned it from Epaphras. 
The preceding forms of exegesis are inferences from this. It 
was a correct interpretation of the scheme of grace which they 
had learned, or they possessed a true knowledge of the plan of 
mercy, because, as the next verse shows, Epaphras had taught 
them the gospel in its fulness and purity. This is also the 
idea of Cicumenius, though Theophylact and Chrysostom 
erroneously include the notion of miracles as confirming the 
truth. We understand the apostle to write thus—since the 
day ye heard it, and fully knew the grace of God in truth, as 
indeed in that true and complete form ye learned it from 
Epaphras ; or, as Calvin explains, testatus est sincere ills fuisse 
traditum. The words ἐν ἀληθ. describe the teaching of Epa- 
phras, or represent that genuine form, in which, by his preach- 
ing, the grace of God had been exhibited at Colosse. It is 
probable that in this statement there are various points of 
implied contrast with those corrupt representations which are 
mentioned and refuted in the subsequent chapter. Thus— 
the grace of God had been taught them without mutilation 
or admixture, but false philosophy shaded or curtailed 
its doctrines. The gospel was cecumenical, but the error 
which menaced them was only provincial in its sphere. 
The truth exhibited the basis and objects of a blessed hope, 
but falsehood darkened the horizon, and while the gospel 
yielded great abundance, such fictitious dogmas were barren 
and empty—a tree with leaves, but without fruit. 

The apostle says—‘‘since ye knew the grace of God in 
truth,” or in its true form, “just as ye learned it from 
Epaphras ”— 

(Ver. 7.) Καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἔπαφραᾳ. The καί found 
in the Received Text after καθώς, is justly excluded on the 
authority of A, B, C, D', F, G17, 23, &c. It may have come 
into the text from its frequent employment in such an idiom 
by the apostle. It might be replied, however, that as, from 
an old tradition, Epaphras was supposed to be the only 
founder of the church, the καί was omitted, as seeming to 
militate against such a belief. Wiggers, indeed, has formally 


COLOSSIANS LI. 7. ΤΊ 


raised such an argument.’ But even were καί genuine, might 
it not mean “really,” or “indeed ”—“ as ye indeed learned of 
Epaphras?” The teaching of Epaphras is thus sealed and 
sanctioned by inspired authority. The apostle had no mean 
jealousy of a colleague who is further characterized as “ our 
beloved fellow-servant ”— | 

Tov ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν. Thenoun occurs againiniv. 7. 
Like ὁμόδουλος, the old Attic form, it signifies “fellow-servant.” 
Conybeare and Macknight are found at opposite extremes 
about the term; the former rendering it “ fellow-bondsman,” 
with unnecessary emphasis, and the latter uttering the senti- 
mental conjecture that Paul used the word because he did 
not wish to grieve the Colossian church by telling them that 
their Epaphras was in prison with him. Timothy, Paul, and 
Epaphras, not only served a common master, but were en- 
gaged in the same service; and therefore this community of 
labour begat a special attachment. The heart of the apostle 
was knit in cordial affection to all his fellow-labourers. He had 
none of that ignoble rivalry which just “ hints a fault and hesi- 
tates dislike.” He felt no envy at their success, but was so 
identified with their work, that whatever gladdened them 
gladdened him; he shared in their triumphs and was saddened 
at their reverses. Still more, it is testified of Epaphras— 

"Oc ἐστι πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Xorcrov—“ who is for 
you a faithful minister of Christ.” The noun διάκονος is used 
in a general sense, as may be seen under Ephes. iii. 7. [πιστὸς 
διάκονος, Ephes. vi. 21.] The reading ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν has been 
called in question, and ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν is adopted by Lachmann, 
Bengel, Olshausen, and Steiger. In favour of this last reading 
are A, Β', D, G; and im favour of the former are C, D’, E, F, 
G, K, and others, with almost all the versions and Fathers. 
Where external testimony is so decided, we cannot accede to 
Olshausen’s pleading of any internal evidence. And the 
meaning attached to ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ---οἷοο apostoli, in our stead—can 
scarcely be correct, since Epaphras was not simply an apos- 
tolical representative, for in ἡμῶν Timothy is included along 
with Paul. Nor is it necessary to give ὑπέρ the sense of “in 
room of,” in Luke ix. 50, for there the phrase means “on our 


1 Studien und Kritiken, 1838, p. 185. 
C 


18 COLOSSIANS I. 8. 


side.” The phrase then ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν means “for your behalf.” 
2 Cor. iv. 5. The faithful labours of Epaphras were directed 
to the spiritual benefit of the Colossian church. For them he 
served, and served faithfully in the gospel of Christ. A brief 
but noble eulogy. As he had devoted to them every energy, 
kept among them, and prayed with and for them, as he had 
presented to them a complete and symmetrical view of the 
gospel, and as their correct knowledge of Divine grace was 
based upon his teaching, and their spiritual eminence and 
fertility were the result of his patient and painstaking efforts, 
therefore were they to love him in his absence, and surely they 
would allow no false teacher to supplant him in their affection. 
Probably the encomium was a virtual warning, for, as Theo- 
doret says, πολλοῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐκόμισεν ἐγκομίοις---ἶνα αὐτοῖς 
πλείονος αἰδοῦς ἀξιώτερως γένηται. It is a faint view of 
Chrysostom to imagine that the faithful service here referred 
to, is but the truthful report of the spiritual condition of the 
Colossians, which Epaphras had brought to Rome. Such a 
slight message could scarce be called a service, and it is there- 
fore to fidelity of ministerial labour at Colosse to which the 
apostle refers. It is wholly a caricature of the words to 
suppose with Calixtus, Michaelis, and Bohmer, that as Epa- 
phras was the apostle’s fellow-prisoner, he alludes to personal 
services done by the Colossian pastor to himself, as if he had 
said—‘ who is, in your room, a faithful servant of Christ to me.” 

(Ver. 8.) Ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι 
- «Ὑ7πο has besides made known to us your love in the 
Spirit.” It narrows the meaning too much to restrict this love 
to the apostle himself and Timothy—“ your love to us.” Yet 
this is the view of the great majority of expositors, from Chry- 
sostom in early times, and Erasmus and Grotius in later days, 
down to Bihr, Bohmer, Steiger, Huther, and Baumgarten- 
Crusius. But the language of the apostle does not warrant 
such a sense except by inference. Nor may the phrase be 
applied solely to brother-love, but, with Meyer, Theodoret, 
Heinrichs, and De Wette, we take it in a general sense as 
denoting the Christian grace of love. And the reason why 
this grace is selected and eulogized is evident from the con- 
cluding words—it was love “in the Spirit "— 


πὸ 


COLOSSIANS 1. 8. 19 


Ἔν πνεύματι. To give this phrase, as in the opinion οἵ 
Rosenmiiller, a-Lapide, Trollope, and others, the mere sense 
of true Christian love, is a weak dilution. Nor can we with 
Wolf and others regard it as in tacit contrast to ἐν σαρκί, a 
love based on domestic or national ties; or as if the mean- 
ing were—a love to the absent apostle which must be spiritual, 
as they had never seen his face in the flesh. The words, as in 
Pauline usage, refer to the Holy Spirit, and point out the 
source and sphere of this gracious affection. Thus, Rom. xiv. 
17, χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι. Gal. v. 22; Rom. xv. 13. Ἔν will 
not stand for διά as Grotius renders it. Not as if Epaphras 
had spoken only of their love, and had made no mention of 
their other spiritual attainments. But love is regarded as the 
crown and consequence of all the other graces, and the men- 
tion of it presupposed their lively and effective exercise. For 
this love is no affection based on common relations—such as 
human friendship or social instincts. It is the offspring of 
spiritual influence in a heart so full of antagonism by nature 
to what is good and pure. The Spirit of Him who is Love 
takes possession of the believing bosom, and exerts upon it 
His own assimilating power. And as love is at the same time 
the combined product or resulting fervour of the other graces 
—as it gives man his closest resemblance to God, as it is the 
life and glory of heaven; and as it is the great object of the 
gospel to create and perfect it in the church, it may be safely 
taken as the index of spiritual advancement. The more it is 
seen in its vivid sympathies with all that is fair and God-like 
—the more its genial harmonies pervade the churches—the 
more its chivalrous impulses are felt, the more token is there 
that the Spirit of God has been in powerful and characteristic 
operation, and therefore as the true summation or totality of its 
various spiritual gifts—a Christian community may be con- 
gratulated on its love. When Epaphras declared their “love 
in the Spirit,” he spoke of the result, and from such a result 
it was at once inferred what a Divine change had been 
wrought, and how the elements of that change had been 
surely and successively developed and matured. “He that 
dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.” 

The reader will easily mark the course of thought. In 


20 COLOSSIANS I. 9. 


verse 3, the apostle intimates that as he prayed, he gave thanks 
for them. Then naturally he tells the reason, but the telling 
of the reason in full prevents him from recording at once what 
formed the theme of his prayer. Now, however, in verse 9, 
he reverts to the contents of his supplications, and he says that 
he asked from God, for the Colossians, blessings fitted for 
mind, heart, and conduct,—a higher degree of knowledge, 
holiness, usefulness, persistence, and strength—all of them at 
once gifts of present possession, and elements of preparation 
too for future blessedness—all of them provided by the Father, 
and enjoyed by those who have been translated into the king- 
dom of His Son. 

(Ver. 9.) Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ap’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, ov 
παυόμεθα ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι, καὶ αἰτούμενοι---““ On this 
account, we too, since the day we heard of it, cease not 
praying and asking.” Διὰ rovro—on this account, because ye 
know the grace of God in truth—because such are your con- 
dition and prospects—because of the faith which sustains you, 
the love which glows within you, the blessed hope laid up for 
you, and the verdant fertility which characterizes you, and sets 
its seal on the genuineness of your Christianity. Καὶ ἡμεῖς--- 
“we too,” we on our part. There is no reason, with De Wette, 
for subjoining the καί to διὰ τοῦτο and rendering “on this 
account, indeed.” ‘The phrase ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας not only refers to 
verse 8, but carries us back to verse 4. The receipt of the 
intelligence produced immediate result, and led to prayer. 
The report did not lie in dormancy, or slowly wake up the 
reciprocal love of Paul and Timothy. The effect was instant 
—and it was not spent with a single impulse. From the day 
we heard it down to the period of our writing this letter—“ we 
cease not.” This continuous prayer is explained by the beauti- 
ful remark of Augustine on Psalm xxxvil.—ipsum desiderium 
tuum oratio tua est, st continuum est desiderium—continua est 
oratio. 

The verb παυόμεθα is here followed by ἃ participle, 
προσευχόμενοι καὶ αἰτούμενοι, and not by the infinitive. 
There is indeed a difference of meaning in the two usages, 
as the participle expresses an action which already exists. 


Winer, ὃ 46; Bernhardy, p. 477. [Ephes. 1. 16.] The dis- 


COLOSSIANS I. 9. 21 


tinction between the two participles has been variously 
understood. But the best mode of characterizing the dif- 
ference is to regard the one as general, and the other as 
special; the first is prayer in its ordinary aspect, and the 
second is direct request. But it is an error on the part of 
Baumgarten-Crusius to say that ἵνα depends upon the last 
participle—for προσεύχομαι is followed by the conjunction in 
Matt. xxiv. 20; Mark xin. 18; 1 Cor. xiv. 13. The phrase 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν belongs also to both participles. What the 
special object of supplication was is now made known. 
Praying— 

Ἵνα πληρῳθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ --- 
“that ye may be filled with the knowledge of His will.” 
[As to this use of ἵνα, see Ephes.i. 17.] The verb πληροῦν, 
like the correspondent term in Hebrew, governs two accusa- 
tives in the active conjugation, and may therefore govern one 
of them in the passive. The genitive is the case oftenest 
employed in the New Testament to denote the complement 
—that with which the action of the verb is realized. In this 
use of the accusative there is no need, with Beza and 
Erasmus, to supply κατά. Winer, ὃ 32-5. We cannot agree 
with Olshausen, that γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις have no distinction 
in the diction of the apostle Paul. We have shown the true 
difference under Ephes.i.17. The vague definition of Steiger 
cannot be sustained; it is wrapt in uncertainty, and is at best 
but a metaphysical subtlety. The idea of Bahr, that ἐπίγνωσις 
is subjective, and γνῶσις is also objective, is only a partial 
view. ᾿Επίγν. is full knowledge exhaustive of its object, and 
is especially meant for those who have already some little 
γνῶσις. The Colossians had γνῶσις, but the apostle wished 
them to be filled with additional and supplemental knowledge, 
not new knowledge, or a different form or section of Chris- 
tian science, but a fuller development of the partial theo- 
logical information which they already possessed. Had he 
gently wished them somewhat more of knowledge, he might 
have used γνῶσις, but as he prayed that they might be filled 
with more of that insight which they already enjoyed, such an 
accumulation was naturally expressed by ἐπίγνωσις. 

That augmentation of knowledge had for its theme the Divine 


22 COLOSSIANS 1. 9. 


will. We apprehend that the principal fault of commentators 
has been to restrict too much the meaning of the phrase, “ His 
will.” Chrysostom, and the Greek Fathers (Zcumenius and 
Theophylact, followed by Huther, refer it to the plan of 
redemption—especially salvation by Christ, not by angels— 
τουτέστι TO τὸν υἱὸν δοθῆναι ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. Others refer it to 
the secret purpose οἵ God—such as Suicer and Bihr, and that 
because it is elsewhere accompanied by μυστήριον. A third 
and numerous party understand the legislative will of God— 
the ethical feature of the Divine counsel, such as Theodoret, 
De Wette, and Meyer. We are inclined to take the phrase 
without any restriction—the Divine will as well in creed as in 
moral obligation; the one basis alike of what we ought to 
believe and of what we ought to do; the only rule of faith 
and manners. 1 Cor.i. 4, 5, 7; 11. 12; xii. 8; Ephes. i. 17. 
The apostle implored for them a complete knowledge of the 
Divine Will in all its revealed aspects and elements— 

Ἔν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, καὶ συνέσει πνευματικῇ---““ In all wisdom 
and spiritual insight.” Some join the clause to the follow- 
ing verse, but without any necessity. The preposition does 
not signify “along with,” nor does it, as Boehmer thinks, 
define the result. Nor does it mean, as Bihr takes it, “by 
means of;” nor does it, as Huther supposes, point out the 
quality of the knowledge. It seems to refer us to the mode 
of its acquisition—“ in all wisdom and understanding.” The 
prayer was not one for plenary inspiration—nor that God 
would by some dazzling self-discovery imbue them with a 
-knowledge of His will, but that He would give them this 
higher spiritual science in the way of giving them all spiritual 
wisdom and understanding. These two nouns are not easily 
comprehended in their specific shades of difference. As a 
specimen of the scholastic forms of definition, we present that 
of Peter Lombard — Sapientia est habitus infusus ad solius 
aeternae veritatis contemplationem et delectationem. Intelligentia 
ad Creatoris et creaturarum invisibilium speculationem.' But,— 

1. Not a few, such as Michaelis, Storr, Flatt, and Heinrichs, 
regard them as synonymous; a mode of interpretation too 


1 Lib. iii. Distinetio, xxv. 2, p. 318, Opera, ed. Migne, Paris, 1841. 


COLOSSIANS I. 9. 23 


easy to be correct—too slovenly to be in accordance with 
accurate philology. 

2. Many give σοφία the sense of theoretic wisdom, and 
σύνεσις, the meaning of practical discernment—such as Biihr, 
Heinsius, and Calvin. 

3. Bengel, Meyer, and Baumgarten-Crusius, think the 
nouns related in the sense of general and special, while De 
Wette thinks the first term to be practical and general, and 
the second, theoretical and special. We are inclined to take 
σοφία in a general sense, and to regard σύνεσις πνευματικῇ as 
its characteristic form or peculiarity. For if God fill men with 
the knowledge of His will, it is usually by clearing their 
spiritual apprehension, and enlarging the sphere of their 
spiritual vision. The mind is trained and tutored to the study 
of Divine things; and as the horizon of its view is gradually 
expanded in such an exercise, it gathers in “ wisdom”—and what 
is this wisdom but “spiritual insight?” Let there be intense 
practical application of the mental powers; prolonged reflec- 
tion; devout and pensive contemplation; the inspection and 
comparison of premises; the solution of doubts; the ascent, 
step by step, slowly and surely, to first principles; the glimpse 
of ulterior relations based upon present realities, and conclu- 
sions drawn from recognized truths; and surely the mind so 
interested and occupied must feel all such acquisitions to be 
wisdom—wisdom, and not mere theory to be tested—wisdom, 
and not simple hypothesis that may be dismissed. And those 
fruits of diligent investigation are not like the coloured 
glimpses of a distant reverie which may be dimmed or 
exchanged, or may wholly fade away, as the whim of such 
imaginational pastime may lazily will it; but they bear at 
once upon the nearest of interests, and evince their immediate 
connection with the most momentous of relations. Of all 
forms of intellectual operation and enlightenment, this is the 
most practical— it is “wisdom.” God fills the mind, not by 
the passive inpouring of transcendental truths, but by directing 
and upholding its energies, and so enabling it to work out the 
result which it makes its own, and recognizes as ‘“‘all wisdom.” 

And this wisdom is really σύνεσις mvevparicy—spiritual 
insight. 7 As we have shown at length under Ephes. i. 3, the 


24 COLOSSIANS I. 10. , 


prevailing meaning of πνευματικός in the New Testament, is 
“of, or belonging to the Holy Spirit.” Spiritual is not 
opposed to carnal, and means not—in connection with the 
human spirit, but the phrase signifies discernment conferred 
and quickened by the Holy Ghost. This enjoyment of the 
Spirit of Light is the special privilege of believers. He dispels 
the mists which obscure the inner vision, fills the soul with an 
ardent relish for Divine truth and a fuller perception of it, 
enables it to see through a perfect medium, and thus confers 
upon it that power and perspicacity termed by the apostle 
“spiritual understanding.” And where this purity and pene- 
tration of discernment are possessed, and the fruits of such 
wisdom are gleaned and garnered up, the mind, in the use of 
such a faculty, and the enjoyment of such acquisitions, cannot 
but be conscious that it has risen to an ampley knowledge of 
the Divine will. The apostle prefixes maoy—“ all.” This 
wisdom and spiritual understanding are not limited vor shri- 
velled, but may be enjoyed to their utmost bounds. 

(Ver. 10.) Περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Kupiov— So that 
ye walk worthy of the Lord.” “Ypac appears to be a spurious 
but natural supplement, and is omitted by A, B, C, D’, F, G, 
though the authorities for it are of no mean value. The 
Syriac has a peculiar rendering. It reads in the first clause of 
the preceding verse 10W? y), that ye walk “according to 
what is just,” and then adds—that ye may please God in all 
good works. The apostle, after the verb of prayer, first uses 
iva with the subjunctive, as indicating the prime petition; 
then follows περιπατῆσαι as denoting a -eontemporaneous 
result, and this infinitive is succeeded by a series of dependent 
and explanatory participles. The figure implied: in the verb — 
is a common one, and is of Hebrew origin. It describes the 
general tenor of one’s life, his peculiar gait and progress in his 
spiritual journey, what are his companions, and what are his 
haunts; whether he hold on his way with steady step, or is 
seduced into occasienal aberrations. By Κύριος is meant 
Christ, and not God, as Anselm and Erasmus imagine; and the 
meaning and reasons of the name are fully detailed under 
Ephes. 1.2. The adverb ἀξίως signifies ‘ becomingly.” [Ephes. 
iv. 1.] Rom. xvi-.2; Phil. 1.27; 1 Thess. ai. 12, To avail 


COLOSSIANS LI. 10. 25 


worthy of the Lord, is to feel the solemn bond of redeeming 
blood, to enshrine the image of Him who shed it, to breathe 
His spirit and act in harmony with His example, to exhibit 
His temperament in its elements of purity, piety, and love, to 
be in the world as He was in the world, to be good and to do 
good, and to show by the whole demeanour that His law is 
the rule which governs, and His glory the aim which elevates 
and directs. No meritum condigni can be inferred from the 
_ passage, as Cameron shows against Bellarmine.’ 

Εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρέσκειαν ---““ In order to all-pleasing.” The 
noun ἀρέσκεια, has, in classic Greek, a bad sense, and means 
obsequiousness, but it has a purified meaning in Philo and in 
the New Testament.* The Lord -is to be pleased and highly 
pleased in everything, for again the apostle prefixes πᾶσαν. 
This well-pleasing is not to be sectional, but uniform and 
unbounded; and it is not difficult to please Him. Men are 
not left im uncertainty to study the best method of insuring 
His complacency, nor are there any moods or forms of caprice ἡ 

with Him. His highest pleasure is to see His own likeness in 
those who own His Lordship: in all their thoughts, purposes, 
and actions, there should be a pervading and paramount 
desire to walk so worthily of Him, as to secure his approval. 
Nor does this statement involve any subtle casuistry. What- 
ever is good in design, generous in sentiment, or noble in 
result, meets at once with His approbation. Whatever 
proximate motive leads the heart, this should be its pale star, 
the bright, prominent, and ultimate guide and director. 

Ἔν παντὶ ἔργῳ-ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες. The participles are 
in the nominative, and not accusative, as in Ephes. ii, 18. 
Kiihner, § 863; Winer, § 64; Vigerus De Idiotismis, p. 340. 
“Fruit-bearing in every good work.” ‘This clause is jofned 
by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Steiger, to εἰς πᾶσαν dpéo- 
κειαν. But such a view is too narrow. It is an element of the 
worthy: walk—and the first of four elements, each specified 
by a participle, καρποφοροῦντες---αὐξανόμενοι---δυναμούμενοι 
— εὐχαριστοῦντες ; two of the participles preceded by a 
qualifying noun with ἐν; and two of them followed by εἰς, 


1 Myrothecium, p. 208. * Athenaeus, Dedpnos., lib. vi. 


20 COLOSSIANS I. 10. 


denoting purpose or result. The first two participles occur 
together in verse 6. Spiritual fruitfulness is the first char- 
acteristic. And those fruits are good works. 2 Cor. ix. 
8; 2 Thess. ii. 17; Heb. xiii. 21; Gal. v. 22; Phil. 1. 11. 
[ἔργα ἀγαθά, Ephes. ii. 10.] Barrenness is deadness. The 
tree with sapless trunk and leafless branches is a melancholy 
object. The figure before us is that of a tree covered with 
dense foliage, and laden with goodly produce—its boughs 
bent with heavy clusters, its crops perennial—buds always 
bursting into blossoms, and blossoms forming into fruit. But 
the apostle says “every good work.” For a third time he 
employs παντί. It is the want of this universality that is the 
chief mark of imperfection. This unique tree is omniferous. 
Other trees produce each only after its kind, unless altered by 
the artificial process of grafting. But this tree presents every 
variety of spiritual fruit without confusion or rivalry, as if it 
contained the stateliness of the palm, the fatness of the olive, 
and the exuberant fecundity of the vine. The graces of 
Christianity are, each in its place, adorning and adorned— 
none absent and none sickly, but the entire assemblage in 
perfect order and symmetry. Superabundance of one kind of 
fruit is no compensation for the absence of another. ‘“ Every 
good work” is inculeated and anticipated. It may be noble 
philanthropy, or more lowly beneficence—it may be the self- 
denial of a martyr, or the gift of a cup of water to the humble 
wayfarer—it may be a deed of magnanimity which startles the 
nations, or it may be the washing of a beggar’s feet—teaching 
its first letters to a ragged orphan, or repeating the story of the 
cross in the hovel of poverty and distress. There is no excep- 
tion—“ every good work” which Christ did, and in which any 
of His disciples may imitate Him—every good work which 
the age needs, or circumstances warrant, or would benefit the 
church or the world. Such fruitfulness is not exhaustive. 
The tree grows healthfully while its fertility is so great. Its 
life is not spent, and its wealth is not impoverished in a single 
autumn, but other twigs are preparing for their burden, and 
other shoots are evincing the vitality of the parent stock—for 
the apostle adds— 

Kat αὐξανόμενοι εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ----“ And erowing 


COLOSSIANS I. 11. 27 


up to the knowledge of God.” Other forms of reading are— 
ἐν τῇ ἐπιγνώσει and τῇ ἐπιγνώσει. The last seems to be the 
best supported by MSS.; the Versions seem to countenance the 
second; but the first is the most difficult form, and therefore 
has been preferred by Tischendorf. Meyer says that εἰς is 
necessary, because each of the two succeeding participles is fol- 
lowed by this preposition, and analogy demands it here. But 
what if we should reply—that to secure uniformity some have 
been tempted to write εἰς where another preposition originally 
stood? A, B, Ὁ, Ὁ", E, F, G, and some Minuscules with the 
Syriac and Coptic versions, support the simple dative τῇ ἐπιγ- 
νώσει. If the accusative, with εἰς, be retained, various forms 
of exegesis may be proposed. Meyer renders εἰς hinsichtlich, 
i regard to. Theophylact paraphrases κατὰ τὸ μέτρον--- 
“according to the measure” of the knowledge of God, an 
interpretation virtually adopted by Heinrichs and Béhmer. If 
the dative, with ἐν, be received, then the meaning may be as 
Theodoret, the Peschito and Vulgate, Beza, Luther, and 
Junker, intimate—growing in the knowledge of God, that is, 
acquiring more and more of the knowledge of God. But 
with Olshausen, De Wette, and Huther, we regard the simple 
dative as instrumental—growing “ by means of the knowledge 
of God,”—the knowledge of His essence, character, will, and 
dispensations. [See under Ephes.i.17.] This knowledge of 
God, the purest and loftiest of human acquisitions, is the 
only pabulum of spiritual growth. A God in shadow creates 
superstition, and the view of Him in only one phasis of His 
character, will, according to its colour, lead either to fanaticism 
or to mysticism. The more we know of His tenderness and 
majesty, the more conversant we are with His Divine pro- 
cedure, either as we find Him in creation, or meet Him in 
providence ; and especially the deeper the experience we have 
of the might of His arm and sympathy of His bosom in redemp- 
tion, the more will the spirit confide in Him, and the more 
will it love the object of its living trust—in short, the more 
spiritual growth will it enjoy. This fruit-bearing and increase 
are the first features of the worthy and pleasing walk. 

(Ver. 11.) The first clause, though its purpose is designated 
by the following εἰς, has a close connection with the preceding. 


28 COLOSSIANS I. 11. 


It describes that peculiar spiritual condition in which believers 
bring forth fruit, and grow, and thus walk worthy of Christ. 
The power is not indigenous; the fertility is not the outburst 
of innate and essential vitality. It comes from imparted 
streneth—the might of God lodged within us. As His own 
nature is for ever outworking in ceaseless acts of beneficence, 
so His strength, lodged in a believer, loses not its original and 
distinctive energy. 

Ἔν πάσῃ δυνάμει δυναμούμενοι. This verb occurs only 
here in the New Testament, though it is found in the Septua- 
gint as the representative of two Hebrew verbs, Ps. Ixviu. 29; 
Ecc. x. 10. Neither does it occur in the classical,’ though it 
is used by the ecclesiastical writers. The common form in 
the New Testament is ἐνδυναμόω. The use of the correlate 
noun and participle intensifies the meaning. The apostle 
refers to the impartation of the Divine strength to believers. 
Fallen humanity is feeble, but rises under this gift into prowess 
and majesty. The semblance of moral omnipotence is com- 
municated to it, and it easily surmounts frailty, pain, sorrow, 
and death, for the apostle a fourth time employs πάσῃ. Philip. 
iv. 13. And the measure of this oift is— 

Kara τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης avtov—“‘ according to the might of 
His glory,” that is, the might which is characteristic of His glory. 
Retaining with Meyer and others the full force of the syntax, we 
cannot, with Luther, Junker, Beza, Storr, Flatt, Bahr, and Dave- 
nant, resolve the idiom thus—His glorious or highest might ; 
nor can we with Béhmer make the clause mean—that might 
which is His glory ; nor can we with Grotius and Valpy 
identify τῆς δόξης with the τῆς ἰσχύος of Ephes. i. 19; nor, 
finally, can we with Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard 
understand by His glory “His Son Christ Jesus.” The glory 
of God possesses a peculiar might, and that might is not 
love simply, as Huther imagines. [Ephes. i. 19.] If we 
survey the glory of God in creation, the immensity of its 
architectural power overwhelms us; or in providence, its ex- 
haustless and versatile energy perplexes us; or in redemption, 
its moral achievements delight and amaze us. If the spiritual 


1 Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, Parerga, p. 605. 
ΠῚ 


COLOSSIANS I. 11. 29 


strength given to believers be after the measure of the might 
of this glory, with what courage and ability shall they be 
armed? Will they not, with so much of God in them, realize 
the God-like in spiritual heroism, so as to resist evil, overcome 
temptation, banish fear, surmount difficulties, embrace oppor- 
tunities of well-doing, obtain victory over death, and prove 
that they are able to rise above everything before which 
unaided humanity sinks and succumbs. “Strengthened ”— 
Εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν ---““ἴὰ order to all 
patience and long-suffering.” These two nouns have been 
variously distinguished. The early definition of Chrysostom 
is fanciful—paxpoOupet γάς τις πρὸς ἐκείνους ove δυνατὸν καὶ 
ἀμύνασθαι, ὑπομένει δὲ οὺς οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι---“ Long- 
suffermg is exercised toward those whom we can punish, 
patience toward those whom we are unable to punish,” where- 
fore, he adds, “patience is never ascribed to God, but long- 
suffering often.” Others refer the first noun to feeling under 
what God sends; and the second, to feeling under what man 
inflicts. A third class understand by the one term the state 
of temper under difficulties; and, by the other, mental 
calmness under suffering. But, not to notice other varieties 
of opinion,’ we incline to give the words a more extended 
signification than to resignation, or quietness under injury. 
Both of them and their correspondent verbs are used not 
simply in reference to the pressure of present evil, but also to 
the prospect of coming deliverance, and as adjuncts or quali- 
ties of faith, or the life of faith. The following examples may 
suffice :—“ Bring forth fruit,” ἐν ὑπομενῇ, Luke viii. 15; “ Pos- 
sess ye your souls,” ἐν wou. Luke xxi. 19; “Well-doing,” καθ᾽ 
vou. Rom. ii. 7; “Let us run the race,” δὶ tou. Heb. xii. 1; 
or again, Heb. x. 36, ‘Ye have need of patience.” The word 
in such places denotes that tenacity of spirit which still holds 
on, and perseveres, and waits God’s time for reward or dis- 
missal. There is similar usage also of the second noun. Its 
verb is used to denote the same exercise of mind, Matt. xviii. 
26, 29; Heb. vi. 15; James v. 7, 8; and the substantive in 
Heb. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 2. There is no reference in this 


1 Tittmann, De Synon. N. T. p. 194. 


90 COLOSSIANS I. 11. 


epistle either to persecution or to coming calamity. But 
believers in the present state are not perfect, they have not 
arrived at the ultimate goal. Impatience would lead to defec- 
tion, and fretfulness to apostacy. There is rest set before 
them, but they have not reached it; hopes held out, but their 
fruition has not come. It is more trying to virtue to bear 
than to act; or, as a-Lapide says, fortia agere Romanum est, 
aiebat Seaevola, sed fortia pati Christianum est. Now, Chris- 
tians are apt to faint under such discouragements, to lose heart 
and despond. Therefore do they need “patience and long- 
mindedness ;” and because these graces dwell not in their 
unassisted nature, the apostle prays that the strength of God 
be for this purpose imparted to them. Even in their beneficent 
fruitfulness there may be a long and trying process ere the 
result be witnessed. In the midst of apparent anomaly and con- 
tradiction, with so much to distress and disappoint, so much to 
try and provoke, so much to tempt a prayer for the immediate 
substitution of sight for faith, there is surely great necessity 
for perseverance and unruftled equanimity; and because 
temper fails under such irritation, as it did with Moses and 
Elisha, and there are dark and inconsistent questionings and 
surmises, as if He were “slack concerning His promise,” a 
higher power is vouchsafed, even the strength of Him whose 
patience and long-suffermg transcend all measurement and 
description. And thus “all patience and long-suffering” are 
possessed, and for a fifth time, m the fulness of his heart, the 
apostle writes πᾶσαν. As the Colossian church was pestered 
with insidious errorists, whose speculations might occasionally 
perplex and confound them, immobility was the more requi- 
site for them ; and such, therefore, is the apostle’s supplication 
in common with the sentiment of the prophet—‘ In quiet- 
ness and confidence shall be your strength.” 

Mera yapac—“ With joy.” A large number of expositors 
join these words to the following participle—ciyapiorovrtec. 
Of this opinion are Chrysostom, Gicumenius, and Theophylact, 
Estius, Bohmer, Huther, and Meyer, the Syriac version, and 
the editors Lachmann and Tischendorf. But we do not see 
any propriety in such a connection, for the participle carries 
the idea of joy along with it. The preposition, moreover, 


COLOSSIANS I. 12, 91 


indicates a connection with the preceding nouns, or shows the 
concomitant of this imparted power; and therefore, with 
Luther, Grotius, Zanchius, Hyperius, Gomarus, De Wette, 
Bihr, Baumgarten-Crusius, Junker, Steiger, and Olshausen, 
we keep the words as they stand in the Received Text. This 
joy characterizes, or rather accompanies, as the preposition 
implies, the graces of patience and long-suffering. That 
peculiar position which necessitates the exercise of patience 
and long-suffering should not induce despondency, or cast a 
gloom over the heart as if it were inevitable fate, to be sul- 
lenly submitted to, but rather should there be joy that this 
Divine power is communicated, and that the mind is upborne 
in triumph, and enabled to hope and wait in quiet expectation. 
And there are abundant reasons of joy. 

(Ver. 12.) ἙΕὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ πατρὶ. There are some 
“variations of reading which need not be noted or analyzed. 
Codices, D’, and G, read καλέσαντι, instead of ἱκανώσαντι, 
perhaps from 1 Thess. 1. 12; while B reads καλέσαντι καὶ 
ἱκανώσαντι, a form erroneously adopted by Lachmann. 

But with what portion of the previous context should this 
verse be connected? Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Calo- 
vius, Béhmer, and Baumgarten-Crusius, refer the connection 
to ov παυόμεθα, as if εὐχαρ. referred to Paul and Timothy, the 
writers of this epistle and the offerers of this prayer. ‘Since 
the day we heard it we cease not to pray for you. . . . giving 
thanks to the Father.” But such a connection is wholly 
capricious and unwarranted, and would make the two preced- 
ing verses a species of parenthesis. The natural order is to 
regard εὐχαριστοῦντες as co-ordinate with the preceding par- 
ticiples καρποφοροῦντες, αὐξανόμενοι, δυναμούμενοι, and as all 
four dependent on the infinitive wepurarijoa—that ye may 
walk, fruit-bearing, growing, strengthened, and giving thanks. 
And there is a beautiful sequence of thought. The apostle 
prayed that they might walk in immediate spiritual fertility 
and growth; amidst difficulties, strengthened into patience 
with joy; and such joy is no romantic enthusiasm, for it is 
based upon experience, inasmuch as even during this imper- 


1 Commentary on Ephesians, p. 464, note. 


92 COLOSSIANS I. 12, 


fect and unsatisfactory state, they were warranted to thank 
Him who was qualifying them all the while for the heavenly 
inheritance. From the visible and outward manifestation of 
fruit as a present and characteristic duty, the apostle ascends 
to internal and sustaining sentiment, and rises yet higher to 
that gratitude, which, based upon a growing maturity for 
heavenly blessedness, expresses its ardour in thanksgiving to 
the Father. The future is thus linked with the present, and 
sheds its lustre over it; and though the believer be now in a 
condition whose intermediate nature necessitates the possession 
of patience and long-suffering, his mind feels at the same 
time within it the elements of accelerating preparation for a 
nobler and purer state of existence. 

In the participle ἱκανώσαντι, connected with txw— I reach, 
or arrive at,’ is the idea of fitness—‘“‘ who hath fitted us,” 2 
Cor. iii. 6. The pronoun ἡμᾶς includes the writer of the epistle 
and his readers, and the aorist may denote repeated action, 
continued during a past period. The object to which this 
fitness relates is described— 

Εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ pwri— For 
the share of the inheritance of the saints in light.” The noun 
μερίς, denotes a portion or share which one is to enjoy, and 
that share is in the κλῆρος; or inheritance, so designated from 
an allusion to the division and allotment of the land of 
Canaan. [Ephes. 1. 11.] Both words represent a Hebrew 
phrase—7n, ‘27, Deut. xxxii. 9. That inheritance has a 
peculiar proprietary, or population—it belongs to the saints. 
The saints are neither Jews nor believers of an early date, but 
the company of those who are Christ’s. [Ephes. 11. 19 ; iii. 18.] 

The meaning and connection of the remaining phrase have 
been variously understood. We merely notice, without dwell- 
ing on it, the opinion of some of the Fathers, that by φῶς is 
meant baptism; that of Aretius, that Christ Himself is in- 
dicated by the term; that of Grotius, that the syntax may be 
thus filled—ayiwv τῶν ἐν φωτὶ; that of Bengel, that ἐν τῷ 


1 As specimens of eccentric etymology may be quoted two attempts to theologize 
upon ἅγιος and sanctus—the former, according to Adam Clarke, being compounded 
of ἃ, privative, and yz, ‘the earth,” and of the latter, Isidore the Pelusiot says— 
sanctum dict quasi sanguine tinctum. 


COLOSSIANS I. 12. 33 


φωτὶ should be joined to wepiéa—participation in the kingdom 
of light, in hoe regno partem beatam. 

1. Meyer, and others after Chrysostom, (cumenius, and 
Theophylact, with Vatablus, and Schrader, take ἐν as imstru- 
mental, and join it to ἱκανώσαντι, and then the meaning will 
be—who fits us by means of the light—the illumination of the 
gospel, τῇ γνώσει. 

2. Others, as Macknight, give the same meaning to the 
term φῶς, but with a different connection, the inheritance of 
the saints which consists of light, to wit, their present evan- 
gelical state as in contrast with the darkness of their previous 
condition. 

To both these forms of exegesis we have objections. 1. 
The position of ἐν τῷ φωτὶ at the end of the verse seems 
to connect it with the κλῆρος, as descriptive of it. 2. The 
language of the next verse speaks of a kingdom of darkness, 
out of which the Colossians had been translated. Now, the 
appropriate contrast is, out of a kingdom of darkness into one 
of light—light not being the instrument of translation, but the 
special property of the second realm. 3. Κλῆρος is often fol- 
lowed by ἐν to signify what it consists in. Thus, in the Sep- 
tuagint— Wisdom, v. 5, ὁ κλῆρος ἐν ἁγίοις ; also Job xxx. 19, 
ἡ μερὶς ἐν ‘yn; and in the New Testament, Acts vii. 21; xxvi. 
18; Rev. xx. 6. This “light,” however, though enjoyed here, 
is not meant to describe their present, but shetk future state. 
For the. inheritance, though given on earth, is finally enjoyed 
in heaven, and therefore, in Ephes. i. 14, the Holy Ghost is 
called the “earnest of our inheritance ;” and in the same chapter, 
the apostle prays that the Ephesians may comprehend the 
riches of the glory of God’s inheritance among his saints. 
Again he specifies, in the same epistle, v. 5, certain classes of 
men who have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and 
God. In Acts xx. 32; xxvi. 18; 1 Pet. i. 4, the mheritance 
is future glory. We apprehend, then, that the apostle means 
to say, that God has fitted them for the future inheritance of 
the saints, which consists in light. It is too restricted a view 
of Bohmer and Huther, to find in φῶς, simply the glory 
of heaven—and of Beza and Storr to confine it to the happi- 


ness of heaven. The expressive epithet suggests both the one 
D 


34 COLOSSIANS I. 12. 


and the other, suggests that knowledge is the concomitant of 
happiness, and purity the basis of glory. 

For heaven is a region of light. The radiance of Him who 
is Light streams through it and envelops all the children of the 
light who live and walk in its lustre. A happy and unfailing 
intuition, sustained by its vicinity to the Uncreated mind, is 
the source of unchequered and perfect knowledge.  Intel- 
lectual refinement is robed “in the beauty of holiness.” The 
brilliancy of the Divine image is reflected from every stainless 
heart, and the material glory of the residence is only sur- 
passed by its spiritual splendour. That “light” is liable to no 
revolution and suffers no eclipse; it glows with unchanging 
permanence, and meeting with no obstruction creates no 
shadow. For they are “saints” who dwell in this kingdom— 
adorned with purity and perfection. Now such being the nature 
of the inheritance, it is not difficult to discover what are the 
elements of meetness for it. Man is incapable of enjoying it 
by nature; for darkness covers his mind, and impurity has 
seized upon his heart, and he must needs be changed. John 
i. 3. He has no loyalty to its God, no love to its Saviour, no 
relish for its pursuits, and no sympathy with its mhabitants. 
His nature must be brought into harmony with the scene, and 
into congeniality with the occupations of such a world of light. 
So that every element of mental obscurity, all that tends to the 
dark and dismal in temperament, and all that vails the nobility 
of an heir of God is dissolved, and fades away in the superior 
glory. The “saints” possess it—therefore, their sanctification is 
complete. No taint of sin remains, no trace of previous cor- 
ruption can be discerned. The language of prayer is super- 
seded by that of praise, and the tongue shall be a stranger for 
ever to moaning and confession. None but the saints, as 
being “light in the Lord,” can dwell in that light. An unre- 
generate spirit would feel itself so solitary and so unhappy, 
especially as it saw its hideousness mirrored in that sea of 
glass which sleeps before the throne, that it would rather 
plunge for relief into the gloom of hell, and there for a moment 
feel itself at ease among others so like it in punishment and crime. 
Again, the one inheritance is shared by many participants, 
and they who are to enjoy it are made meet for social inter- 


COLOSSIANS I. 12. 35 


course. Selfishness vanishes before universal love, the intense 
yearnings of a spiritual brotherhood are developed and _per- 
fected, for the entire assemblage is so united as if only one 
heart thrilled in their bosom, while one song bursts from 
their lips. 

In fine, all this moral fitness is a paternal process, the work 
of the Father, qualifying his children for their patrimony. 
They do not infuse this maturity into themselves—this trans- 
formation is not a natural process, nor do they ripen of 
necessity into purity and love. The Father meetens them: 
and from Him are the blcod that pardons, the Spirit that 
purifies, the truth which nourishes, the hope which sustains, the 
charter which secures—the whole preparation which meetens 
for the heavenly inheritance. He, therefore, is to be thanked, 
by all whose experience assures them of this auspicious train- 
ing. If they are sensible of growth in truth, holiness, and affec- 
tion—if they feel that they are travelling from stage to stage of 
spiritual assimilation—if their sanctified instincts and suscepti- 
bilities are finding congruous satisfaction and luxury in spiritual 
exercises, then, in spite of every drawback which is inseparable 
from their present condition in its trials and wants—they are 
only giving utterance to irrepressible emotion when they are 
giving thanks “unto the Father.”' Nay, more, the very fact 
that a renewal is requisite, and that the present state, by its 
ills and emptiness, renders imperative the exercise of patience 
and long-suffering, gives a purer relish to celestial enjoyments. 
So sudden and vast is the change from expectation to enjoy- 
ment, and from pain to rapture, that the translated saint will 
feel a zest on entering heaven which cannot be tasted by those 
who have never had experience of any other state or sphere 
of existence. Nor do we deny that in the present state the 
inheritance of light is partially enjoyed, for heaven begins on 
earth, or as Chrysostom says, the apostle speaks “of things 
present and things to come.” ‘The translation out of darkness 
is effected here, and the dawning of the perfect day is 
already enjoyed, though cloud and gloom are often inter- 
mingled with it, and vail its beams. And when the inheritance 


' Chrysostom well says—Od μόνον ἡμεῖν ἔδωκε τὴν τιμὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἰσχυροὺς πρὸς τὸ 
λαβεῖν ἐποίησε. 


860 COLOSSIANS I. 18. 


is reached, the spirit of this thanksgiving shall still rule the 
heart. Conscious of its meetness, it shall pour itself out in 
hearty and prolonged halleluiahs. The world of perfection is 
. a world of universal happiness and song, for no tongue is ever 
mute, no harp ever unstrung, and the harmony is never dis- 
turbed by the mournful echo of a plaintive strain. 

The apostle glides insensibly out of the language of prayer 
into that of direct theological statement. Still, the statement 
is virtually a portion of the prayer, as it describes Him who 
in His redeeming love and power imparts the knowledge 
of Himself and His revealed will, who confers His own 
might upon His people, and prepares them for glory — 
the very God who has delivered us out of the kingdom of 
darkness. 

(Ver. 13.) Ὅς ἐῤῥύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκό- 
τους--““ Who rescued us out of the kingdom of darkness.” 
This verse does not describe the entire process of prepara- 
tion, as Meyer seems to think; it rather gives us a vivid 
glance of the two termini—the one of departure, and the other 
of arrival. The unregenerate state is described as the king- 
dom of darkness.’ It is one of spiritual gloom in its 
government, essence, pursuits, and subjects. In its adminis- 
tration it is named —‘ the power of Satan,” in itself it is 
darkness—its actions are ‘“ works of darkness,” and its popula- 
tion are “children of disobedience and wrath.” Luke xxii. 53; 
Acts xxvi. 18. It is needless, with Augustine,’ Zanchius, 
Bloomfield, and others, to regard ἐξουσία as personified, and as 
meaning Satan. [Σκότος, Ephes. iv. 18; v. 8.7 This princi- 
pality is named “darkness” on account of its prevailing 
ethical element. Above it the heaven is shrouded in dismal 
eclipse, around it lies dense and impervious gloom, and before 
it stretches out the shadow of death. What men should 
believe and what they should do, what they should rest on 


1 Blackwall, Sacred Classics, vol. ii. 134, proposes to read verses 9—12 in a par- 
enthesis, and as the result of such arrangement, he exclaims—‘' How round the 
period, how vigorous and Divine the sense!” But such a parenthesis would be a 
miserable invention, as it leaves 2; without an antecedent at all, or absurdly gives it 
σνεύματι in verse 8. > 

2 Vol. ii. p. 1216, Op. ed. Bened. Paris, 1836. 


COLOSSIANS I. 13. 37 


and what they should hope for, what the mind should fasten 
on as truth and what the heart should gather in upon itself as 
a portion, what the spirit should present as acceptable worship 
and what the conscience should venerate as a rule of duty— 
all had been matter of deep perplexity or hopeless uncertainty 
to the Colossians prior to their spiritual translation. There 
were occasionally in the heathen world shrewd guesses 
at truth—incidental approximations, when some _ brighter 
intellect unfolded its cogitations and longings. But the 
masses were involved in obscurity, and scarcely observed 
the fitful glimmer of the meteor which had shot over them. 
Ionorance, vice, and misery, the triple shades of this darkness, 
held possession of them. This “kingdom of darkness” stands in 
contrast to the sainted heritage in light. The deponent verb, 
from an obsolete form,’ signifies, first, to draw to one’s self, then 
to rescue, to pluck out of danger. The act of deliverance is 
still ascribed to the Father, for He alone can achieve the 
spiritual transportation described in the following clause. 

Καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης 
avrov— And translated us into the kingdom of the Son 
of His love.” The verb is often employed by the classical 
writers to signify the deportation of a body of men, or the 
removal of them to form a colony.” The term is therefore an 
expressive one. The Colossians had been lifted out of the 
realm of darkness, their original seat and habitation, and they 
had been carried into the kingdom of His Son, and colonized 
in it. They were not as emigrants in search of a home, nor 
as a company of dissatisfied exiles, but they were marched 
out of the one territory and settled in the other expressly by 
Divine guidance. βθασιλεία stands in contrast with ἐξουσία, 
but there appears to be no ground for Wetstein’s affirmation, 
that in such a contrast, the latter word means a tyranny,’ for 
in Rev. xii. 10, the one term is referred to God, and the other 
to Christ. ‘The kingdom of His Son” is plainly that kingdom 
which has Christ for its Head and Founder—which is partially 
developed on earth, and shall be finally perfected in heaven. 
[Ephes. v. 5.] The word “kingdom” is used in harmony with 


' Passow, sub voce; Buttman, Lezxilogus, p. 305, ed. Fishlake, London, 1840. 
” Josephus, Antig. ix. 2, 1, 3 Raphel. Annot. ii. p. 257, 


38 COLOSSIANS I. 13. 


the action indicated by the verb. As a church, men meet 
together in its sacred assemblies; as a kingdom, they are 
located as citizens init. It belongs of right to “His Son.” He 
founded it, organized it, and rules over it—prescribes its laws, 
regulates its usages, protects its subjects, and crowns them 
with blessings. It is therefore a kingdom of light, whose 
prismatic rays are truth, purity, and happiness. We cannot 
say, with Olshausen, that the kingdom is regarded in its sub- 
jective aspect, for the language is that of objective transference 
—change of condition, implyimg, however, change of character. 
This kingdom is one in which the Colossians were, at the 
period of Paul’s writing to them. It is not the future heaven, 
ideally, as Meyer takes it, and in which they were placed only 
spe et jure, as Gesner, Keil, Koppe, and others have it. It is 
a present state—but one which is intimately connected with 
futurity. The one kingdom of God has an earthly and a 
celestial phasis. It resembles a city divided by a river, 
but still under the same municipal administration, and 
having one common franchise. The head of this kingdom is 
named— 

Tov υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης avrov—* The Son of His love.” This 
is a solitary appellation. ‘The apostle is about to descant upon 
the glory of the Saviour, and therefore he here introduces Him 
as the Son. [Ephes. i. 3.] The phrase itself does not really 
differ from υἱὸς ἀγαπητός, Matthew imi. 17; xii. 18; xvi. 5; 
or from the similar idiom in Ephes. i. 6, vide ἀγαπημένος. It 
signifies the Son who possesses His love—or who excites it in 
the Divine heart. The meaning is the same in either case, for 
He who possesses the love is the cause of it toward Himself. 
Sustaining such a relation to the Father, He is the object of 
boundless and unchanging affection. This love corresponds to 
the nature at once of Him who manifests it and Him who 
enjoys it. The love of God to one who is His own Image 
will be in harmony with the Dive nature of both—infinite as its 
object, and eternal and majestic as the bosom in which it 
dwells. This love of the Father to the Son prompted Him to 
give that Son as Saviour, and then to exalt Him to Universal 
Empire. John ii. 35. Two metaphysical and antagonistic 
deductions from this clause may be noted. The first extreme 


COLOSSIANS I. 14. 39 


is that of Theodore of Mopsuestia,' who affirms that we are 
here taught that Christ is Son, not by nature, but by adoption. 
But the apostle is not speaking of the essential relation of the 
Son to the Father, but of the emotion which such a relation- 
ship has created. He does not say how He became the Son, 
he only says, that as the Son, He is the object of intense 
affection on the part of the Father. The other extreme is that 
of Augustine,’ who argues that love indicates the essence or 
substance of Deity, out of which the Son sprang. But Love is 
an attribute, and not an essence; it belongs to character, and 
not to substance ; it prompts, and does not produce. It is the 
radiance of the sun, but not the orb itself—the current of the 
stream, but not the water which forms it. Olshausen’s modi- 
fication of the same hypothesis is liable to similar objections. 
Nor do we find sufficient grounds for the inference deduced 
by Huther and De Wette, that the phrase, “kingdom of His 
Son” implies that the blessing of sonship, or adoption, is con- 
ferred on all its members, or that they become sons; for 
believers are, in the context, and in harmony with its imagery, 
regarded as subjects, and not as children. Nor is God named 
our Father in verse 12. Lastly, our rescue and subsequent 
settlement are ascribed to God the Father, for His sovereign 
grace and power alone are equal to the enterprise—and thanks 
again are due to Him, 

(Ver. 14.) Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν---“ In whom we have redemption—the forgiveness 
of sins.” The words διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ of the Received 
Text rest on no good authority, for the entire preponderance 
of authorities, manuscripts, versions, and quotations, is against 
them. The phrase is an imitation of Ephes. i. 7. Lachmann 
reads ἔσχομεν in the aorist, without sufficient grounds. The 
apostle could not speak of the Son without a reference to His 
redeeming work. The work of the Father has its own aspect, 

L'Obev καὶ “ υἱὸν ἀγάπης" αὐτὸν ἐκάλεσεν" ὡς οὐ φύσει τοῦ ἸΙαπρὸς ὄντα υἱὸν ἀλλ᾽ 
ἀγάπη τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἀξιωθέντα τούτων.--- Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 302. 

2 Quod autem dictum est filii caritatis sue, nihil aliud intelligatur, quam filii sui 
dilecti quam filii postremo substantiz sux. Caritas quippe patris, que in natura 
ejus est ineffabiliter simplici, nihil aliud est, quam ejus ipsa natura, atque substantia. 


Ac per hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus alius est, quam qui de substantia est genitus. 
—Opera, ed. Bened. vol. viii. p, 1501, Paris, 1836. 


40 COLOSSIANS I. 14. 


and so has the work of the Son. Our direct change of condi- 
tion is ascribed to the Father, as the almighty and powerful 
dispenser of blessing; but we are said to be united to the 
Son, and so to be in Him as to obtain redemption in the union 
—for by the price He paid forgiveness of sins is secured and 
conferred. This verse, then, does not merely describe a 
blessmg—the enjoyment of which is indispensable to our 
preparation for heaven, and our removal from the realm of 
darkness, but it also and especially characterizes a continuous 
sift enjoyed by those who are settled in the kingdom of the 
Son. The subjects of His kingdom are in vital union with 
Him—in Him they are having redemption. ‘Their translation 


out of the tyranny of darkness—their place in the new king- 


dom, and their growing maturity for heavenly bliss are im- 
plied in this redemption, though its special element is the 
forgiveness of sins. Their first condition was one of guilt as 
well as gloom, and forgiveness was enjoyed in their emigra- 
tion from it. Nor are they perfect under the benign reign of 
the Son, and as a state of imperfection is so far one of sin, it is 
in daily need of repeated pardon. The results of Christ’s 
work are fully enjoyed only in heaven—the process of re- 
demption is there completed, and thus we are said still to be 
having it as long as we are on earth. The entire verse has 
been fully illustrated under Ephes. i. 7. The difference of 
diction is unessential, ἁμαρτιῶν being employed in Colossians, 
and παραπτωμάτων in the Epistle to the Ephesians. One 
question not alluded to there may be here noticed, and that 
is, why forgiveness occupies in both places so prominent 
a place? It stands as an explanation of redemption, not as if 
it included the whole of it, but because— 

1. Itis a first and prominent blessing. So soon as faith springs 
up in the heart the pardon of sin is enjoyed—the results of ex- 
piation are conferred. This doctrine was placed in the front of 
apostolic preaching: Acts v. 31; xii. 38; xxvi. 18; and among 
the Divine declarations and promises of the Old Testament, it 
occurs with cheering emphasis and repetition: Exodus xxxiv. 
7; Isaiah xl. 2; lv. 7; Jer. xxxiii. 8; Micah vu. 18; Psalm 
Ixxxv. 2; cui. 3; and again and again it is announced as the 
result of accepted sacrifice in the Levitical law. And no 


ae —— 


COLOSSIANS I. 14. Al 


wonder. So deep is man’s guilt, and so tremendous is the 
penalty: so agonized is his conscience, and so terrible are his 
forebodings; so utterly helpless and hopeless is his awful 
state without Divine interposition, that a free and perfect 
absolution from the sentence stands out not only as a blessing 
of indescribable grandeur and necessity, but as the first and 
welcome offer and characteristic of the gospel of Christ. And 
it is no sectional or partial blessing. It makes no distinction 
among sins, no discrimination among transgressors. Its cir- 
cuit is complete, for every sin is included, and it is offered 
with unbounded freedom and invitation. No previous qualifi- 
cation is requisite, and no subsequent merit is anticipated. 
And as it is the act of the sovereign judge, who shall arraign 
its equity, or by what other authority can it be revoked or 
cancelled? Rom. νὴ]. 33, 34. 

2. Forgiveness is more closely connected with redemption 
than any other blessing, as it is the only blessing enjoyed 
immediately from Christ, and as the direct result of His expia- 
tion. It springs at once from that λύτρον which forms the 
centre and basis of the ἀπολύτρωσις. Other blessings 
obtained for Christ's sake are given through some appointed 
and dependent medium. ‘Thus, peace is the effect of pardon ; 
and holiness is the product of the Spirit and the word, as 
agent and instrument. But forgiveness passes through no inter- 
vention—it comes at once from the cross to the believing soul. 

3. It is essentially bound up with subsequent gifts. For- 
giveness precedes purity—there is change of state before there 
is change of heart. The Holy Ghost did not come down till 
Christ was glorified—till His expiatory oblation had been 
accepted. Being justified, believers are sanctified. The 
imputation of righteousness is a necessary pre-requisite to the 
infusion of holiness. The Spirit will not take up His abode 
in an unpardoned soul, and the sinner’s relation to the law 
must be changed ere his nature be renovated. At the same 
time, pardon and holiness are inseparably associated, and the 
remission of trespasses is the precursor of peace and joy, hope 
and life. So that, such being its nature, origin, and results, 
the apostle naturally places “forgiveness of sins” in apposition 
with redemption in Christ Jesus. 


42 COLOSSIANS I. 14. 


Having now spoken of Christ and the blessings secured by 
union to Him, the apostle, for obvious reasons, lingers on that 
Name, round which crystallized all the doctrines he taught 
—all the truths of that theology which it was the one business 
of his life to proclaim. 

The next verse begins a lofty and comprehensive paragraph, 
in which the dignity and rank of Christ are described in 
linked clauses of marvellous terseness and harmony. ‘The 
apostle introduces the name of the Son on purpose, and then 
details in sweeping completeness the glory of His person and 
work. There is no doubt that the verses were composed in 
reference to modes of error prevalent at Colosse, and the 
forms of expression have their special origin, shape, and edge 
in this polemical reference. While the writer states absolute 
truth in rich and glowing accumulation of sentences, still, the 
thought and diction are so moulded as to bear against false 
dogmas which were in circulation. It is strange that in any 
system of theology the person of Christ should be depreciated, 
and His mediatorial work vailed and slighted. The spectacle, 
however, is not an uncommon one. Yet the apostles can 
scarcely find language of sufficient energy and lustre to tell in 
it the honour and majesty of the Redeemer. The sentences 
in which Paul describes the rank and prerogative of Christ 
are like a bursting torrent, dashing away every barrier in its 
impetuous race. How he exults in the precious theme, and 
how his soul swells into impassioned panegyric ! 

We do not know in what precise way the dignity of Jesus 
was vilified by the Colossian errorists. It would seem, indeed, 
that the germs of Gnosticism and Ebionitism were to be found 
in Colosse—denial of Christ’s actual humanity, and of His su- 
preme divinity. The apostle, therefore, holds Him out as the 
one Supreme Creator, not only of the world, but of the uni- 
verse, and declares’ that reconciliation is secured in the body 
of His flesh, through death. Confused notions of the spirit- 
world appear also to have prevailed. Jesus was discrowned. 
The Lord of the angels was placed among the angels, as if 
he had been a selected delegate out of many illustrious com- 
peers. That He was superhuman may not have been 
denied — but that He was truly human was more than 


COLOSSIANS I. 15. 43 


questioned. That there had been a being of superior order 
upon earth was allowed, but whether as a veritable man he 
had blood to shed, and a soul and body to be severed in death 
and re-united in resurrection, appears to have been doubted 
or denied. Ascetic austerities, and mystical speculations, 
took the place of reliance on an objective atonement.’ The 
gospel was shorn of its simplicity, and mutilated in its 
adaptations, in order to be fitted in to the dogmas, and 
announced in the specious nomenclature of a vain theo- 
sophy. That Jesus, as a celestial being, stood in a certain 
relation to God, and bore some similitude to Him, might 
be granted—but the likeness was thought to be faint and 
distant. The apostle affirms of Him in choice and expres- 
sive terms, on the other hand, “Who is the image of the 
invisible God ”— 

(Ver. 15.) “Ος ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ aoparov. 2 Cor. 
ἵν. 4. The clause dazzles by its brightness, and awes by its 
mystery. We feel the warnng—‘ Draw not nigh hither, for 
the place is holy ground.” One trembles to subject such a de- 
claration to the scrutiny of human reason, and feels as if he 
were rudely profaning it by the appliances of earthly erudi- 
tion. The invisible God—how dark and dreadful the impene- 
trable vail! Christ His image—how perfect in its resemblance, 
and overpowering in its brilliance! We must worship whilst 
we construe; and our exegesis must be penetrated by a pro- 
found devotion. 

The relative ὅς carries us back at once to vide, in verse 13, 
and in its connection with the intermediate verse it may bear 
a causal signification, “ inasmuch as He is,” &c. Bernhardy, p. 
292. The noun εἰκών does not require the article, being 
clearly defined by the following genitive. Winer, ᾧ 18, 2, b. 
That this term was a current one in the Jewish theosophy, is 
plain from many citations.” Hesychius defines εἰκών by 


1 See Introduction. 

2 Philo, De Opificio, χόγον εἰκόνα ϑεοῦ, p. 12, Opera i. ed. Pfeiffer, λόγος ἐστιν 
εἰκὼν θεοῦ, De Monarch. Similar expressions are found among the Kabbalists, and 
among oriental theosophists, and seem to embody in various forms of disguise and 
error a truth which appears to have descended with other fragments of an early 
patriarchal time. Kleuker, Zendavesia, i. p. 4. Usteri, Paulin Lehrb. p. 308. 


44 COLOSSIANS I. 15. 


χαρακτήρ and τύπος. Chrysostom speaks of it as τὸ κατὰ 
πᾶν ἴσον καὶ ὅμοιον, “a faithful likeness in every thing ;” 
and Theophylact describes it as ἀπαραλλάκτος, “ without 
change.” 

The epithet ἀόρατος; as applied to God, refers not, perhaps, to 
the fact that He is and has been unseen, but to His invisibility, 
or to the fact that He cannot and will not be seen. John i. 
18; Rom. i. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17. Perhaps the Great God remains 
concealed for ever in the unfathomable depths of His own 
essence, which, to every created vision is so dazzling as to be 


“dark with excess of light.” There needs, therefore, a me 


dium of representation, which must be His exact similitude. 
But where shall this be found? Can any creature bear upon 
him the full impress of Divinity, and shine out in God’s stead 
to the universe without contraction of person or diminution of 
splendour? Could the Infinite dwarf itself into the finite, or 
the Eternal shrink into a limited cycle? May we not, there- 
‘fore, anticipate a medium in harmony with the original? The 
lunar reflection is but a feeble resemblance of the solar glory. 
So that the image of God must be Divine as well as visible— 
must be éuootcroc—of the same essence with the original. A 
visible God can alone be the image of God, possessing all the 
elements and attributes of His nature. The Divine can be 
fully pictured only in the Divine. The universe mirrors the 
glory of God, but does not cireumscribe it. His “invisible 
things” assume a palpable form and aspect in the objects and 
laws of creation. Man is made in the image of God—in his 
headship over the earth around him, he is “the image and 
glory of God”—but he was only a faint and fractional minia- 
ture, even in his first and best estate, and now it is sadly 
dimmed and effaced. But Christ is the image of God—not 
oxta—a shadowy or evanescent sketch which cannot be 
caught or copied, but εἰκών, a real and perfect likeness—no 
feature absent, none misplaced, and none impaired in fulness 
or dimmed in lustre. The very counterpart of God He is. 
Now, this Image of God is not Christ in His Divine nature, 
or as the eternal Logos, as Olshausen, Huther, Bihr, Usteri, 
and Adam Clarke, and many of the Fathers, suppose, for the 
apostle is speaking of the Son, and of that Son as the author 


—— Ss 


COLOSSIANS I. 15. 45 


of redemption and forgiveness of sin. It is, therefore, Jesus 
in His mediatorial person, that the apostle characterizes as 
being the image of God. For it is a strange notion of Chry- 
sostom, and some of his followers, such as Clarius, that as 
invisibility is a property of God, it must also be a property of 
His image, if that image be an undeviating similitude.’’ Our 
Lord Himself said, even when He dwelt upon earth robed in 
no mantle of light, and with no nimbus surrounding His 
brow, “he who hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Visibility =: 
is implied in the very notion of animage. ‘The spirit of the 
statement is, that our only vision or knowledge of the Father 
isin His Son. ‘Noman knoweth the Father but the Son,” 
and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him.” The Socinian 
hypothesis, advocated even by Grotius and Heinrichs, that 
only because He revealed so fully the will of God is He 
called the image of God, is far short of the full meaning,’ 
though as the “image” shines upon us we look and learn. To 
Him, as “ Angel of the Presence,” we are indebted for those 
glimpses of the “eternal power and Godhead” which creation 
discloses—those glimpses of sovereignty throned upon bound- 
less power, fathomless wisdom, and unwearying goodness, 
which are presented by the universe above us and around us. 
The elements of the Divine nature and character which are 
mirrored out to us in providence are derived from the same 
source. Christ, as Creator and Preserver, is the palpable 
image of God. In this aspect, it is not visibility of person 
that can be maintained, but the embodiment of attribute in 
visible result, as in Rom. 1. 20, where it is said, ‘the invisible 
things” of the Creator are “clearly seen.” 

But especially in Himself and as Redeemer is He the repre- 
sentative of God. His prophetic epithet was “Immanuel, God 
with us.” In His incarnate state He brought God so near us as 
to place Him under the cognizance of our very senses—men saw, 
and heard, and handled him—a speaking, acting, weeping, and 


1 Bengel says—Inyisibilis imago secundum naturam divinam; visibilis secundum 
humanam. 

2 Dr. Owen says—‘ Were He not the essential image of the Father in His own 
Divine person, He could not be the representative image of God unto us as Ηθ 15 
incarnate.” —Christologia, p. 78, Works, vol. i. Edin. 1850. 


40 COLOSSIANS I. 15. 


suffermg God; He was, as Basil terms it, εἰκὼν ζῶσα, a living 
image. He held out an image of God in the love He displayed, 
which was too tender and fervent, too noble and self-denying, to 
have had its home in any created bosom—in the power He put 
forth, which was too vast to be lodged in other than a Divine 
arm, and also in His wisdom and holiness, and in those blessed 
results which sprang from His presence. When he moved on 
the surface of the billows, did not the disciples see a realiza- 
tion of the unapproachable prerogative of Him “ who treadeth 
upon the waves of the sea?” When the crested waves were 
hushed into quiet, as He looked out upon the storm and 
spoke to it, His fellow-voyagers felt that they had heard the 
voice of Divinity. When the dead were evoked by His touch 
and word from their slumbers, the spectators beheld the energy 
and prerogative of Him who says of Himself, “I kill, and I 
make alive; I wound, and I heal.” When the hungry were 
satisfied with an immediate banquet in the desert, the abun- 
dance proved the presence of the Lord of the Seasons, who, 
in the process of vegetation, multiplies the seed cast into the 
furrow “in some thirty, in some sixty, and in some an hun- 
dred fold.” In those daily miracles of healing was there not 
manifest the soft and effective hand of Him who is ‘abundant in 
goodness ?” and in those words of wondrous penetration which 
touched the heart of the auditor was there not an irresistible 
demonstration of the Divine omniscience? Still, too, at the 
right hand of the Majesty on high, is He the visible administrator 
and object of worship. Thus, “the Son of His love” is a visible 
image of the invisible Father, not the “copy of an image ”*— 
distinct from Him, and yet so like Him, making God in all His 
glorious fulness apparent to us—showing us in Himself and 
His works the bright contour and likeness of the invisible 
Jehovah. This glory is not merely official, but it is also essen- 
tial, not won, but possessed from eternity. O the grandeur of 
that redemption of which He is the author, and the magni- 
ficence of that kingdom of which He is head! Not only is 
He the image of God—but the apostle adds— 


1 Contra Eunom, p. 28. 
? παράδειγμα εἰκόνος, Epiphanius, Haeres, xv. See also Dorner, Lehre von der 
Person Christi, &c. Berlin, 1852. 


COLOSSIANS I. 15. a 47 


Πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως --- “The first-born of every 
creature.” [πάσης, Ephes. 1. 21.] The meaning of this 
remarkable phrase is not easily discovered to our entire 
satisfaction. Only, it is clear, from the previous clause, and 
from the succeeding verse, that the apostle cannot mean to class 
Jesus Himself among created things. It is an awkward 
expedient on the part of Isidore," Erasmus, Fleming,? and 
Michaelis, to propose to change the accentuation zpwro- 
τόκος, and by making it a paroxyton, to give it the sense of 
first-producer. But the term, with such a meaning, has only 
a feminine application,’ and it cannot bear such a sense in the 
eighteenth verse. 

1. Many of the Fathers, and not a few of the moderns under- 
stand the epithet as denotive of the generation of the Logos, or 
Divine Son. Thus, in Gicumenius occurs the phrase γεννηθεὶς 
συναϊδίος, “begotten co-eternally,” and Chrysostom says of 
Him—O20¢ γὰρ καὶ θεοῦ υἱὸς. Athanasius describes Him— 
ἄτρεπτος ἐξ ἀτρέπτου, “the unchangeable from the unchange- 
able,” a statement preceded by another to this effect—6é δὲ υἱὸς 
μόνος ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ᾿αἴδιος ἐγεννήθη. Theophylact puts the 
question — “‘ first-born of every creature, how?” and διὰ 
γεννήσεως is his reply. Tertullian, too, uses similar phrase- 
ology—primogenitus ut ante omnia genitus; and again, primo- 
genitus conditionis, t.e. conditorum a Deo. Ambrose writes— 
primogenitus, quia nemo ante ipsum, unigenitus, quia nemo post 
ipsum.’ We cannot readily accept the interpretation, though 
defended by Calovius, Aretius, Bihr, Bohmer, von Gerlach, 
and Bloomfield, &e. As Bengel admits, it makes the genitive 
πάσης κτίσεως depend on πρῶτος in composition. The syntax 
is not impossible, as with the simple adjective, Johni. 15, 30, but 
the following similar phrase—pwrdérokoc ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, shows 


1 Ep. iii. 81 --οὐῦ σρῶσον σῆς κτίσεως. ... ἀλλὰ πρῶτον πσεσοκέναι . . .. ἵνα 
a τρίτης συλλαβῆς ὀξυμένης, ὡς πρωτοκτίστης. 

2 Christology, i. p. 216. 

8 Homer, Iliad, xvii. 5. So Thomas Magister—Mgwraroxos ὃ πρώτως πεχθεὶς, 
Tewroronos δὲ μήτηρ, ἡ πρώτως τέξασα. 

* Expositio fidei, i. p. 242. Vide Snicer’s Thesaurus, sub voce, πρωτότοκος. 

5 Adversus Ῥγαῶ. ο. 7. Adversus Mare. ν. 19, pp. 660, 330, vol. ii. Opera, ed. 
Oehler, Lipsiae, 1854. 

& De Fide, xiv. 89, Opera, vol. ii. p. 550, ed. Migne, Paris, 1845. 


48 COLOSSIANS I. 15. 


that such an exegesis cannot here be adopted, for it is plain that 
it cannot mean “begotten before all the dead.” The compari- 
son there is ποῦ one of time even, as Meyer erroneously takes it 
—hbut one of rank. The sense assigned by this class of critics is, 
that Christ was the begotten of the Father, and became His 
Son prior to the work of creation. But we doubt if this be 
the form of truth intended by the apostle, for we should have 
expected the noun υἱός, or some other term denoting relation- 
ship to have occurred in the clause. Christ is called zpwré- 
τοκος, in reference to His mother, but never in connection 
with His Divine Father, in any place where any semblance of 
the doctrine of eternal filiation is referred to, and in such a 
word derived from rixrw, the reference is to maternal, not to 
paternal origin. 

2. The antagonist exegesis is that of the Arians and Socin- 
ians, which presumes that Christ is, in this phrase, classed 
as a portion of creation. Even Athanasius, in his second 
discourse against the Arians, admits that Christ has got the 
name διὰ τὴν πολλῶν ἀδελφοποίησιν. A common argument 
in favour of this exegesis is, that where this epithet is used, 
it is implied that he who bears it is not only compared with 
others, but is one of them. Thus, in the phrase “first-born 
among many brethren,” the inference is, that the first-born is. 
one of the family, though his rank be pre-eminent; and in 
the phrase “first-born from the dead,” Jesus is plainly re- 
garded as having been one of the dead Himself, though 
He now be exalted above them. So that the deduction is, if 
He is called the “first-born of every creature,” then He is, 
in the comparison, and from a necessary ὁμογένεια, regarded 
as one of the creatures. Why then, is it confidently asked, 
shrink from such a conclusion ? 

We might give the reply of Basil to Eunomius,! who had 
adopted such an exegesis—‘if He be called the first-born of 
the dead, because He is the cause of their resurrection, then, 
by parity of argument, he is the First-born of the whole 
creation, because He is the cause of its existence.” Theodoret 


ΤΡ δὲ ΄ “Ὁ oy δ \ Ν wy (εν ms 2 ~ 3 , 
Ei 0¢ προτοτοκος νεκρῶν εἰρήται, “ΑΜΜΑ0 Τὸ HiITIOS εἰνῶᾶν Ζῆς EX νεκρῶὼν αναςτάσεως, 
«.«“ Ν ΄ 7 ‘ Ἂν 3 Α͂». Londen J > 2 > Ν Ὁ» 
OUTH καὶ πρωτότοκος HTITEWS, διὰ Το αἰΤιὸς εἰναι Tov ἐξ οὐχ OUTOY εἰς TO εἶνε ταρα- 


γαγεῖν τὴν καίσιν.---ΤΑν. iy. Opera ii. p. 204. 


COLOSSIANS I. 15. 49 


puis the question—if He is only-begotten, how can He be 
first-begotten ; and if first-begotten, how can He be only- 
begotten? And he guards against the Arian inference by 
addino—mpwrdrokoe οὐχ ὡς ἀδελφὴν ἔχων τὴν κτίσιν, that is, 
He cannot have a brotherly relation to the creation, and be at 
the same time its maker. The ancient critics also observe 
that the epithet employed by the apostle is not πρωτόκτιστος; 
first-created. Besides, in the cases in which the term πρωτό- 
τόκος marks him who bears it, as one of a class referred to, such 
a class is usually expressed in the plural number, as in the 
18th verse, and Rom. viii. 29; Rev. 1. 5, but the apostle does 
not here say τῶν κτισμάτων. 

Yet, even assuming for a moment the Socinian hypothesis, 
we would not be nonplussed. We reckon it very wrong on 
the part of Usteri’ to translate the Pauline term by FHrstge- 
schaffene, ‘‘first-created,” and it is easy to see what must be the 
theological conclusions drawn from such a rendering. An- 
selm explains that the words apply to Jesus only as man, 
for as God he is unigenitus non primogenitus. Now, we 
have shown that the preceding clause, “image of the in- 
visible God,” implies Christ’s divinity, and we might say with 
Anselm that this refers to His humanity. That body was 
created by the Holy Ghost—it was a creature, and still is so, as 
we believe. Though on the throne, it is not deified—is not so 
covered nor interpenetrated with divinity as to cease to be a 
humanity. Nay, the last and loftiest prerogative is to be 
exercised by the “MAN whom He hath ordained,” so that 
even with this construction we are under no necessity to 
adopt the Arian or Socinian hypothesis. If in the former 
clause, there is express proof of Christ’s divinity, in the 
latter there is no less assertion of his real humanity, a 
humanity which stands cut in special pre-eminence over the 
entire creation, as its Lord and proprietor. 

3. Our own view is a modified form of that which takes zpw- 
τότοκος in its figurative meaning of chief or Lord—“ begotten 
before all creation.” This view is held by Melancthon, 
Cameron, Piscator, Hammond, Réell, Suicer, Cocceius, Storr, 

1 [ehrb. p. 315.  Holzhausen, in his reply to Schleiermacher in the Tibing. 


Zeitschrift, 1833, uses similar unguarded language. 
E 


δ0 COLOSSIANS I. 15. 


Flatt, De Wette, Pye Smith, Robinson, and Whitby. Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia’ held the same opinion—ovx ἐπὶ χρόνου 
λέγεται μόνον ἀλλὰ yap καὶ ἐπὶ TpoTiicewe—but he under- 
stood by κτίσις, the new creation. The famous Photius, of the 
ninth century, in the 192d question of his Amphilochia, has 
given a similar view, referrimg, however, the phrase to His 
human nature, and His resurrection from the dead.? Some 
critics conjoin both the first and second views. We apprehend 
that the apostle selects the unusual word for a special reason. 
It seems to have been a prime term in the nomenclature of 
the Colossian errorists, and the apostle takes the epithet and 
gives it to Him to whom alone it rightfully belongs. Traces 
of the same idiom are found in the Jewish Kabbala—in which 
Jehovah himself is called the “first-born of the world,” that 
is in all probability, the Divine representative of essential and 
immanent perfection to the world.’ Thus the first heavenly 
man was called Adam Kadmon—the first-begotten of God— 
He who is Messiah and the Metatron of the burning bush. 
Not that Paul merely borrowed his language, but the terms 
which the errorists were perverting, he refers to Jesus in 
their full truth and legitimate application. In a similar theo- 
logical dialect, Philo names the λόγος by the epithet πρωτό- 
yovoc. The diction of the Old Testament in reference to the 
Hebrew +22 is in harmony, and is based upon the familiar 
rights and prerogatives of human primogeniture. The Hebrew 
adjective is applied to what is primary, prominent, and the 
most illustrious of its classus, Job xviii. 13; “first-born of 
death ”—alarming and fatal malady, Isaiah xiv. 30, “ first-born 
of the poor”—a pauper of paupers. Still more, we find the 
term in the Messianic oracle of the 89th Psalm—‘“TI will make 
him my first-born”—will mvest him with royal dignity, and 
clothe him with pre-eminent splendour, so as that he shall tower 
in majesty above all his kingly compeers. Israel elevated 
above the other nations, brought into a covenant relation, and 
reflecting so much of the Divine glory, is Jehovah’s first-born, 
Exodus iv. 22, Jeremiah xxxi. 9. The church of Christ, 


! Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 206. 2 Wolf, Curae, νοὶ, ν. 800. 
3 Schoettgen, Horae Heb. i. 922. 
4 De Confusione Ling. p. 381, vol. 11, opera, ed. Pfeiffer 


COLOSSIANS I. 15. 51 


blessed and beloved, and placed nearer the throne than angels, 
is the “church of the first-born,” Heb. xii. 23. And when 
believers are regarded as sons—as a vast and happy brother- 
hood—He who loved them, and died for them, who has won 
for Himself special renown in their adoption, and has im- 
printed his image on all the children, stands out as chief in 
the family, and is “the first-born among many brethren,” 
Rom. vii. 29. Again in Heb. i. 6, Jesus receives the same 
appellation, masmuch as the spirits of the heavenly world are 
solemnly summoned to do Him homage as his Father's repre- 
sentative.’ Moreover, when He is styled, as in the 18th verse, 
and in Rev. 1. 5, “ the first-born of the dead,” the reference is not 
to mere time or priority, but to prerogative, for He is not 
simply the first who rose, ‘no more to return to corruption,” 
but his immortal primogeniture secures the resurrection of his 
people, and is at cnce the pledge and the pattern of it. The 
genitive then may be taken as that of reference. Bernhardy, 
p- 139. The meaning therefore is, “first-born in reference to the 
whole creation.” The phrase so understood is only another 
aspect of the former clause. The first-born was his father’s 
representative, and acted in his father’s name. Christ stands 
out as the First-born, all transactions are with Him, and they 
are equivalent to transactions with the Sovereign Father. 
The Father is invisible, but the universe is not left without 
a palpable God. Its existence and arrangements are His, 
and the supervision of it belongs to Him. He is the God who 
busies Himself in its affairs, and with whom it has to do. He 
is its First-born, its chief and governor. As the first-born of 
the house is he to whom its management is entrusted, so the 
First-born of the whole creation is He who is its governor and 
Lord, and whose prerogative it is to exhinit to the universe 
the image and attributes of the unseen Jehovan. He is 
manifested Deity, appearing, speaking, working, ruling. as in 
patriarchal times when he descended in a temporary humanity, 
and held familiar discourse with the world’s “grey fathers,” 


1 Bleek, im loc. Der Brief an die Hebrder erlautert, Berlin, 1836. It may 
be added that under the Roman law, haeres and dominus were interchangeable terms, 
and to compare great things with small, in one of the Hebrides it was the custom for 
the head of the clan to abdicate when his son came of age.—Boswell’s Tow, p. 261. 


" 


δ2 COLOSSIANS I. 16. 


and as under the Mosaic economy, of whose theocracy He was 
the head, of whose temple He was the God, and of whose 
oracles He was the inspirer. Now He is exalted to unbounded 
sovereignty, as ‘“‘ Lord of all,” rolling onwards the mighty and 
mysterious wheels of a universal providence, without halting 
or confusion; seated as His Father’s deputy on a throne of 
unbounded dominion, which to this world is its tribunal of judg- 
ment—wearing the name at which every knee bows, “of things 
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth” 
—the acting President of the universe, and, therefore, “the 
First-born of every creature.” His Father’s love to Him has 
given Him this pre-eminence, this “double portion,” “Thou 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” It is plainly 
implied at the same time that He existed before all creatures, 
for he has never stood in any other or secondary relation to 
the universe—to the many mansions of His Father’s house. 
(Ver. 16.) “Ore ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The conjunction ὅτι, assigns the 
reason of the preceding statement. Hes first-born of the whole 
creation, for by Him “all things” were created—and He is the 
image of God, for as Creator he shines out in the “bright- 
ness of His Father’s glory,” so that we apprehend it to be a 
narrow and confined view to restrict the reference of ὅτι to 
the last clause of the previous verse. The phrase τὰ πάντα, 
means ‘the all”—the universe, the whole that exists. Winer, 
δ xvu. 4. The aorist characterizes creation as a past and 
perfect work. Creation is here in the fullest and most 
unqualified sense ascribed to Christ, and the doctrine is in 
perfect harmony with the theology of the beloved disciple, 
John i. 3. The work of the six days displayed vast creative 
energy, but it was to a great extent the inbringing of furniture 
and population to a planet already made and in diurnal 
revolution, for it comprehended the formation of a balanced 
atmosphere, the enclosure of the ocean within proper limits, 
the clothing of the soil with verdure, shrubs, trees, and cereal 
grasses—the exhibition of sun, moon, and stars, as lights in 
the frmament—the introduction of bird, beast, reptile, and fish, 


1 Peut. xxi. 17. 


COLOSSIANS I. 16 53 


into their appropriate haunts and elements—and the organiza- 
tion and endowment of man, with Eden for his heritage, and 
the world for his home. But this demiurgical process implied 
the previous exercise of Divine omnipotence, for “in the begin- 
ning God created the heaven and the earth.” It is not, 
therefore, the wise and tasteful arrangement of pre-existent 
materials or the reduction of chaos to order, beauty, and 
life, which is here ascribed to Jesus, but the summoning of 
universal nature into original existence. What had no being 
before was brought into being by Him. The universe was not 
till He commanded it to be. ‘He spake and it was done.” 
Every form of matter and life owes its origin to the Son of God, 
no matter in what sphere it may be found, or with what qualities 
it may be invested. “In heaven or on earth.” Christ’s creative 
work was no local or limited operation ; it was not bounded by 
this little orb ; its sweep surrounds the universe which is named 
in Jewish diction and according to a natural division—“ heaven 
and earth.” Every form and kind of matter, simple or complex 
—the atom and the star, the sun and the clod—every grade of 
life from the worm to the angel—every order of intellect and 
being around and above us, the splendours of heaven and the 
nearer phenomena of earth, are the product of the First-born. 
Ta δρατὰ καὶ τὰ adpara— The visible and the invisible.” 
This distinction seems to have been common in the Eastern 
philosophy :? the latter epithet being referred to the abode of 
angels and blessed spirits. The meaning is greatly lowered by 
some of the Greek Fathers, who thought the term was appli- 
cable to the souls of men, and by not a few of the moderns, 
who include under it the souls of the dead. The meaning is, 
what exists within the reach of vision, and what exists beyond 
it. The object of which the eye can take cognizance, and the 
glory which “eye hath not seen,” are equally the “ handi- 
work” of Jesus. The assertion is true, not only in reference 
to the limited conceptions of the universe current in the 
apostle’s days, but true in the widest sense. The visible 
portion of the creation consisting of some myriads of stars, is 
but a mere section or stratum of the great fabric. In propor- 


1 See also on p. 55. 2 Gesenius, de Theolog. Samaritana, p. 20. 


δά COLOSSIANS T, 16. 


tion as power is given to the telescopic glass, are new bodies 
brought into view. Nothing like a limit to creation can be 
descried. The farther we penetrate into space, the luminaries 
are neither dimmer nor scarcer, but werlds of singular 
beauty and variety burst upon us, and the distant star- 
dust is found to consist of orbs so dense and crowded as 
to appear one blended mass of sparkling radiance. Rays of 
light from the remotest nebule must have been two millions of 
years on their inconceivably swift journey to our world. The 
nearest fixed star is twenty-one billions of miles from us, so that 
between it and us there is room in one straight line for 12,000 
solar systems, each as large as our own. From the seraph that 
burns nearest the throne, through the innumerable suns and 
planets which are so thickly strewn in the firmament, and out- 
wards to the unseen orbs which sentinel the verge of space— 
all is the result of Christ’s omnipotence and love. 

It is probable, however, that the apostle thought of heaven 
proper when he spoke of things invisible, for he adds, as if in 
special reference to its population—“ whether they be thrones, 
or dominions, or principalities, or powers ”— 

Elre θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι. These 
epithets refer to celestial dignities. In Ephes. i. 21, he says 
--ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριό- 
τητος. The arrangement is different—the two last terms of 
the one are the two first in the other, and κυριότητος, which 
is last here, is second in Ephesians. Opévor occurs here, but 
δυνάμεως is excluded. The “thrones” appear to be the highest, 
—chairs of state in humble and distant imitation of the Divine 
imperial throne. We need not repeat our remarks made on 
this subject under Ephes. 1. 21. If we may credit Irenzus,' 
the Gnostics held that another power than Divine created 
the celestial hierarchy. Simon Magus said—nnoian generare 
angelos et potestates, a quibus et mundum hune factum. The 
object of the apostle is to show that Jesus is the creator, not 
simply of lower modes of being, but of the higher Essences 
of the Universe. Yes, those Beings, so illustrious as to be 
seated on “thrones ;” so noble as to be styled ‘ dominions ;” 


1 Cont. Haer. i. 23, § 2; vol. i. 238, ed. Stieren. 


COLOSSIANS I. 16. δῦ 


so elevated as to be greeted with the title of “ principalities ;” 
and so mighty as to merit the appellation of ‘‘ powers :” these, 
so like God as to be called “gods” themselves,’ bow to the 
Son of God as the one author of their existence, position, and 
prerogative. As no atom is too minute, so no creature is too 
gigantic for His plastic hand. What a reproof to that 
“worshipping of angels” afterwards reprobated by the apostle 
—beings who are only creatures, and who themselves are 
summoned to do suit and service to the First-born. ‘The sen- 
tence is, at this point, concluded, but the apostle reiterates— 
Ta πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν Exreorar— All things by 
Him and for Him were created.” Already. the apostle had 
said—év αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη ra πάντα. The change of preposition 
and tense can scarcely be regarded as accidental, or as intro- 
duced -for the mere sake of varied diction. Chrysostom, 
indeed, and many after him, regard ἐν and διά as synonymous. 
Indeed, the Father says, τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐστι; and Usteri 
repeats the blunder; while De Wette finds compacted into 
ἐν the double sense of δι᾿ αὐτοῦ and εἰς αὐτὸν. The old school 
of Jewish interpretation, represented by Philo and some of the 
Kabbalists, held a theory which was adopted by several of the 
Fathers, as Origen, Athanasius, and Hilary; by the medizval 
divines ; and virtually by Neander, Bihr, Bohmer, Kleuker, 
Olshausen, and Kiihler. Their notion is, that in the Logos, 
and by Him, was the world created—the idea was im Him, 
and its working out was by Him. He is both causa exem- 
plaris and causa effectiva. “In Him,” says Olshausen, 
“are all things created, i.e. the Son of God is the intelligible 
world, the κόσμος νοητὸς, 1.6. things themselves according to 
the idea of them, He carries their essentiality in Himself; 
in the creation they come forth from Him to an indepen- 
dent existence, in the completion of all things they return to 
Him.” We cannot, with Cocceius, and others, take ν as 
bringing out the idea that the universe was created by the 
Father, in the Son. No mention is made of the Father in the 
context. We rather hold, with Meyer, “that the act of 
creation rests in Christ originally, and its completion is 


1 Psalm xevii. 7. 


δὺ COLOSSIANS I. 16, 


grounded in Him.” He is not simply instrumental cause, but 
He is also primary cause. The impulse to create came upon 
Him from no co-ordinate power of which He was either the 
conscious or the passive organ. All things were created in Him 
—the source of motive, desire, and energy was in Him. He 
was not, as a builder, working out the plans of an architect— 
but the design is His own conception, and the execution is 
His own unaided enterprise. He did not need to go beyond 
Himself, either to find space on which to lay the foundation 
of the fabric, or to receive assistance in its erection. On 
the other hand, the extrinsic aspect is represented by διά 
—the universe is the result of the exercise of His omnipo- 
tence, or as the Syriac renders, “ by His hand.” [Ὁ still stands 
out as having been brought into existence by Him. ‘The 
aorist carries us back to the act of creation, which had all its 
elements in Him, and the perfect tense exhibits the universe 
as still remaining the monument and proof of His creative 
might. The first clause depicts creation in its origin, and 
the second refers to it as an existing effect. In the former, it 
is an act embodying plan and power, which are alike “in 
Him”—in the latter, it is a phenomenon caused and still 
continued “by Him.” Winer, § 54; 6. 

Kai εἰς αὐτὸν. Not in ipso, as the Vulgate renders, but 
“and for Him.” This clause marks out His final purpose in 
creation. It means not “for Him” as the middle point of 
creation, as Biihr and Huther imagine; nor simply “for His 
plan,” as Baumgarten-Crusius holds; nor merely “for His 
glory,” as Béhmer explains it; nor with a main view to His 
Incarnation, as Melancthon regards it; nor yet with an 
express reference to His Universal Headship, as Grotius and 
Storr have maintained. The phrase “for Him” seems to 
mean for Him in every aspect of His Being, and every pur- 
pose of His Heart. He is, as Clement of Alexandria says, 
τέλος, as well as ἀρχή. Not only is the universe His sole and 
unhelped work, but it is a work done by Himself, and especially 
for Himself,—for every end contemplated in His infinite wis- 
dom and love. A man of taste and skill may construct a 
magnificent palace, but it is for His sovereign as a royal habi- 
tation. On the contrary, Christ is uncontrolled, meeting 


COLOSSIANS I. 17. δὲ 


with no interference, for His is no subordinate agency defined 
and guided by a superior power for which it labours and to 
which it is responsible. No license of this nature could be 
permitted to any creature, for it would be ruinous to the 
universe and fatal to himself. Such a path of uncurbed 
operation would astonish all heaven, and soon surprise all hell. 
He only “ of whom, to whom, and for whom are all things,” 
can have this freedom of action in Himself and for Himself. 
Had the Divine Being remained alone, His glory would have 
been unseen and His praises unsung. But He longed to 
impart of His own happiness to creatures fitted to possess it—to 
fill so many vessels out of that “fountain of life” which wells out 
from His bosom. ‘Therefore Christ fitted up these “all things” 
“for Himself,” in order that He might exhibit His glory while 
He diffused happiness through creatures of innumerable 
worlds, and enabled them to behold His mirrored brightness 
and reflect it; that He might occupy a throne of supreme and 
unapproachable sovereignty ; and show to the universe His 
indescribable grace, which, in stooping to save one of its 
worlds, has thrown a new lustre over the Divine holiness, and 
proved the unshaken harmony and stability of the Divine 
administration. For this Creator is He “in whom we have 
redemption,” and this noblest of His works was im certain 
prospect when for Himself all things were created—a platform 
of no stinted proportions prepared for Him and by Him. 
Creation in itself presents an imperfect aspect of God, opens 
up a glimpse of only one side of His nature—His brightest and 
holiest phase lying under an eclipse; but redemption exhibits 
Him in His fulness of essence and symmetry of character. 
And did not Christ contemplate such a manifestation when He 
brought into existence so vast an empire to enjoy and adore 
the august and ennobling spectacle? Thus His all-sided relation 
to the universe is depicted—it is “in Him,” “by Him,” and 
“for Him.” Let no one say, He is an inferior agent—the uni- 
verse was created “in Him;” let no one surmise, He is but a latent 
source—it is ‘‘by Him;” let no one look on Him as another's 
deputy—it is ‘for Him.” In every sense He is the sovereign 
creator—His is the conception, and Himself the agent and end. 
(Ver. 17.) Καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ révrwv— And He is 


δ8 COLOSSIANS I. 17. 


before 411. The pronoun in the nominative has an emphatic 
sense—‘‘and this one”—the creator of all, is before all. Two 
meanings have been assigned to the preposition πρό. 

1. Many take it in the sense of order, or emimence—such 
as Noesselt, Heinrichs, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schleiermacher, 
and, of necessity, the Socinian expositors. ‘There is no need 
of this secondary meaning, and the phrase as it occurs in 
James v. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 8, does not warrant such an exegesis, 
for it occurs in those places as a kind of adverbial emphasis. 

2. It naturally means “before all” in point of time—as 
Bohmer, Meyer, De Wette, and Huther take it. John 1. 30. 
When connected with persons, πρό bears such a primary 
meaning always in the New Testament, John v. 7; Rom. 
xvi. 7; Gal. 1. 17. Priority of existence belongs to the 
great First Cause. He who made all necessarily existed 
before all. Prior to His creative work, He had filled the 
unmeasured periods of an unbeginning eternity. Matter is 
not eternal—is not the dark and necessary circumference of 
His bright Essence. He pre-existed it, and cailed it into being. 
Everything is posterior to Him, and nothing coeval with Him. 
And the present tense is employed—“ He is,” not “‘ He was.” 
John vii. 58. His is unchanging being. At every point of 
His existence it may be said of Him, He is. He is all that He 
was, and all that He will be—and comprises in Him the birth 
and end of time. Were His existence measured by human 
epochs, you might say of Him at some bygone period “ He 
was "—but the apostle, glancing at His immutability of nature, 
simply says, “ He 15. Cicumenius rightly remarks, that the 
apostle writes not ἐγένετο πρὸ πάντων, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι πρὸ πάντων. 

Καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ ovvéornke— And all things in Him 
are upheld.” Not only is He the creator, but He is also 
preserver. Heb. i. 3. The verb sometimes signifies to 
arrange, to constitute, to create, but it also denotes to main- 
tain in existence what has been created. 2 Pet. i. 5.1 Such 


1 Thus we find—Herodotus, vii. 225, στράτευμα συνεστηκός, a Standing army; τὰ 
cuv:ornxor , things as at present. Again, Aristotle, de Mund. 6, tx σοῦ θεοῦ τὰ 
πάντα καὶ διὰ θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκε. So also Plato, Pol. 7, &c.; Timaeus, p. 29. In 
Philo, too, the same meaning is often found, as may be seen in the collected examples 
of Elsner, Krebs, Loesner, and Kypke. 


COLOSSIANS I. 17. 59 


is the view of the Fathers; as Gicumenius paraphrases—éi 
αὐτοῦ τὴν γένεσιν καὶ τὴν διαμονήν ἔχει. Προμηθεῖται ὧν 
ἐποίησε. The perfect tense seems to point us to this signifi- 
cation. What has been created has still been preserved. The 
two meanings of the verb meet and merge in its perfect tense. 
The ra πάντα, in this verse, are those of the preceding clauses, 
and not simply the church, as some in timidity and error 
restrict it. All things were brought together, and are still 
held together in Him. The energy which created is alone 
competent to sustain, every successive moment of providence 
being, as it were, a successive act of creation. In Him this 
sustentation of all things reposes. He is the condition of their - 
primary and prolonged being. What a vast view of Christ’s 
dignity! His arm upholds the universe, and if it were with- 
drawn, all things would fade into their original non-existence. 
His great empire depends upon Him in all its provinces— 
life, mind, sensation, and matter; atoms beneath us to which — 
geology has not descended, and stars beyond us to which 
astronomy has never penetrated. He feeds the sun with fuel, 
and vails the moon in beauty. He guides the planets on their 
journey, and keeps them from collision and disorder. Those 
secret forms of existence which the unaided eye cannot detect 
are receiving from Him “their meat in due season.” The rain 
out of His reservoirs nourishes “‘ grass for the cattle, and herb. 
for the service of man.” ‘The vitiated atmosphere discharged Ὁ 
from animal lungs becomes in His laboratory the source of 
special nutrition to vegetable life, and the foul breathings of 
forges and manufactories supply with strength and colour the 
tall and gorgeous plants of the torrid zone. Thus that universal 
balance is preserved, the derangement of which would throw 
around the globe the pall of death. Order is never violated, 
the tree yields fruit ‘after his kind,” and according to the 
original edict. Evening and morning alternate in sure and 
swift succession. The mighty and minute are alike to Him 
whose supervision embraces the extinction of a world and the 
fall of a sparrow. The “creeping things innumerable in the 
great and wide sea” look up to Him, and He opens His hand 
and. “they are filled with good;” as well the leviathan who is 
‘‘made to play therein,” as the insect that builds its coral cell— 


00 COLOSSIANS I. 17. 


first its dwelling and then its tomb. Every pulsation of our 
hearts depends on His sovereign beneficence who feeds us 
and clothes us. The intellect of the cherub reflects His light, 
and the fire of the seraph is but the glow of His love. All 
things which He has evoked into being have their continued 
subsistence in Him. 

Are we not entranced with the dignity of our Redeemer, and 
are we not amazed at His condescension and love? That the 
creator and upholder of the universe should come down to 
such a world as this, and clothe Himself in the inferior nature 
of its race, and in that nature die to forgive and save it, is the 
most amazing of revelations. Dare we lift our hearts to con- 
template and credit it? And yet it is truth, most glorious truth; 
truth sealed with the blood of Calvary. What sublimity is 
shed around the gospel!. The God of the first chapter of Genesis 
is the babe of the first chapter of Matthew. He whom Isaiah 
depicts as “the Lord God, the creator of the ends of the earth,” 
“‘who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, 
and meted out heaven with the span,” is the Christ crucified 
of evangelical story and apostolic preaching. He who, in the 
pages of Jeremiah, is “the true God, the living God, and an 
everlasting king,” is in the pages of John the Word made flesh 
—the weeping Jesus—the master girded with a towel and 
washing His disciples’ feet—the sufferer crowned with thorns 
and nailed in nakedness to the cross. He who is depicted in 
Ezekiel as seated on the sapphire throne, with the rainbow for 
its canopy, and the cherubim for its bearers and guardians, is 
none other than He whose garments were divided by His 
executioners, yea, whose corpse was pierced by the barbarous 
arm of a Roman soldier, and probed to the very heart to prove 
the reality of His death. He who warned the ancient people 
that they ‘saw no manner of similitude in the day when He 
spake to them in Horeb,” says at length to a group standing 
around Him, “behold my hands and my feet, that it is I 
myself, handle me and see.” He by whom all things were 
made had not “where to lay His head.” What faith in power 
and extent should not be reposed in such a Saviour-God ! 
Surely He who made and who sustains the universe is able to 
keep that we “have committed to Him,” and will not, from 


COLOSSIANS I. 17. 61 


inability or oversight, suffer a confiding spirit to sink into 
perdition. 

We have not chosen to interrupt the course of exegesis by 
taking notice of the non-natural interpretation which has been 
sometimes put upon these verses. The deniers of the Redeem- 
er’s deity, and of necessity such as Crellius, Slichting, and the 
editors of the “ Improved Version,” hold that the creation re- 
ferred to is not the physical, but a moral creation,—an exegesis 
acquiesced in, in some of its parts, by Grotius, Wetstein, 
Ernesti, Noesselt, Heinrichs, Schrader, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
and Schleiermacher. . But, as Whitby remarks, it is a “flat and 
mean” exposition; or, as Daillé calls it, “chicaneuse glosse.” 
For— 

1. It is contradicted by the paragraph which afterwards, 
and that formally, introduces the new or spiritual creation, and 
connects it as a sequel with that other creation which in these 
verses the apostle ascribes to Christ. This mode of connection 
is a plain proof that two distinct acts, or provinces of operation 
and government, are referred to Christ. 

2. The obvious meaning of the terms employed is against 
the Socinian hypothesis. Had the words occurred in any 
common paragraph, their meaning would never have been 
doubted. Had the Father been spoken of, the reference to 
creation, in its proper sense, would never have been impugned. 
Why then, when the reference is to the Son, should not the 
first and most natural interpretation be put upon the lan- 
guage ? Pierce remarks, that the exegesis which adopts the 
notion of a spiritual creation would never have been espoused 
“but for the sake of an hypothesis.” The language in its 
words and spirit—its minuteness and universality—leads us to 
the first or physical creation. It is a miserable shift of the 
editors of the Improved Version to argue “ the apostle does not 
say by Him were created heaven and earth, but things in 
heaven and things on earth.” The inspired language is, the 
universe—‘“ the all” was created by Him without exception; 


1 The views of Photinus, a disciple of Marcellus, in the fourth century, were simi- 
lar, and were condemned even by an Arian Council at Sirmium, in 351. ΤῈ is strange - 
to find Lampe adopting the Socinian exegesis, as in his Commentary on the 45th 
Psalm, p. 573. 


62 COLOSSIANS 1. 17. 


‘‘things in heaven,” comprising heaven and its population ; and 
“things on earth,” meaning earth and all that it contains. One 
is apt to wonder at the hardihood of such an exegesis, and to 
pause and ask with Whitby, “do the angels need this moral 
creation, or are they a part of this spiritual creation?” And 
how jejune to say, that by “things in heaven” are meant the 
Jews, and by “things on earth,” the Gentiles. Besides, if we 
adopt the hypothesis, that a moral renovation is described by 
these words, the paragraph would lead us to suppose that it 
had been already effected, and that it still subsisted, whereas 
in reality it had only commenced. 

3. Such phraseology cannot signify a moral creation. The 
verb xriZw has sometimes a secondary sense, and refers to 
the new creation. In such cases not only is the meaning 
obvious from the context, as in Ephes. τ. 10, 2 Cor. v. 17, 
Eph. iv. 24, Col. ii. 10, but also the subjects of the renova- 
tion are living men already in physical existence; and there 
can be therefore no mistake in calling the mighty moral change 
that passes over them a creation. In the paragraph before us, 
on the other hand, no such previous condition exists ; all things 
are said to be created,—that is, brought into existence by 
Christ Jesus. The passages of similar meaning in the Old Tes- 
tament, as Ps. li. 10, Isaiah xlv. 8, Jeremiah xxxi. 22, Ke. 
&c., present no difficulty, for they carry with them the prin- 
ciple of their own solution. Such phraseology as that before us 
occurs not in any of these places; and in one of them where 
there is similar diction, ambiguity is guarded against by the 
addition of the epithet “‘new,”—‘‘I create new heavens and a 
new earth.” 

Lastly, as Whitby,’ Dr. Pye Smith,’ and Burton’ have shown, 
the early Greek Fathers unanimously understood the passage 
of a “proper and physical creation.” The Socinian interpreta- 
tion, in short, is as repugnant to sound exegesis as the trans- 
parent trick of Marcion was to ordinary honesty, when, ac- 
cording to Tertullian, he omitted in his edition the verses 


1 See also Pearson on the Creed, p. 156, vol. i. ed. Oxford, 1847. 
2 Scripture Testimony, ii. 273. 
3 Testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. (Passim), Oxtord, 


1837. 


COLOSSIANS I. 18, 63 


altogether. The perversion of them is not better than the ex- 
clusion of them; nay, the latter has the merit of a direct avowal 
of inability or reluctance to explain them. They, however, 
survive as a bright and glorious testimony to Him who is the 
“True God and eternal life.” 

A similar assault upon the natural meaning of the paragraph, 
and which created no small stir, was made by Schleiermacher* 
in the third number of the Studien und Kritiken, 1832. His 
exegesis in its general principles and minute details is opposed 
alike to sound philology and to the context. His affirmation 
that κτίζειν is never used in Hellenistic Greek of creation pro- 
per, is contradicted by Wisdom 114, &.; Rev. iv. 11; x. 6. 
His attempt to connect προτότοκος as an adjective with the 
preceding εἰκών is another failure clearly proved by the verbal 
arrangement. How frigid to confine the phrase, “visible and 
invisible,” to the last half of the previous clause—“ things on 
earth.” Somewhat more spiritual and ingenious than the 
Socinian hypothesis, this exegesis of Schleiermacher leads to 
the same unsatisfactory result. It was answered by Osiander 
in the same journal, 1833; and by Holzhausen in the Tiibing. 
Zeitschrift, 1833; by Bihr in an appendix to his Commentary; 
and by Bleek in his Exposition of Hebrews i. 3. 

(Ver. 18.) Kai αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκ- 
κλησίας.---“ And He is the head of the body,—the Church.” 
The latter genitive is in apposition. The apostle now com- 
mences the second portion of the paragraph, and pourtrays 
Christ’s relation to the Church. As Theodoret says, He passes 
ἀπὸ τῆς θεολογίας ἐις τὴν οἰκονομίαν. Still He stands out su- 
preme—the one guardian and benefactor—the one Saviour and 
president—xai aivéc—He and none other. The meaning of 
the phrase, “head of ihe body—the church,” has been given 
under Ephesians i. 22, 23; and iv. 15, 16. ‘The probability is 
that Christ’s headship was impugned by the false teachers, 
ἴῃ consequence of their theory of emanations and other 


1 Thus he says, “‘ Christus ist in dem gesammten Umfang der geistigen Menschen- 
welt das erstycborne Bild Gottes, das urspriingliche Abbild Gottes; alle Gliubigen 
sollten in das Bild Christi gestaltet werden, woraus ebenfalls das Bild Gottes in 
ihnen entstehen miisse, ein Bild zweiter Ordnung.”—Stud. τ, Krit. “1832, 3, 5. 
521 ff. 


64 COLOSSIANS I. 18. 


fantastic reveries about the spirit-world. The church is not, 
as Noesselt’ says, the whole family in heaven and in earth, 
—mnor yet the human race, one of whom Christ became ;— 
but the company of the redeemed, the body of the faithful 
in Christ Jesus. The previous verses show His qualification 
for such a headship,—His possession of a Divine nature-—His 
supremacy over the universe, and His creation and support of 
all things. Any creature would be deified were he so highly 
exalted; for he would, from his position, become the god of 
the Christian people, as their blesser, protector, and object 
of worship. But the church and the universe are under one 
administration, that of Him who is “ King of kings and Lord 
of lords.” The king of the universe is able to be Head of the 
church, and He has won the Headship in His blood. It is no 
eminence to which He is not entitled, no function which He 
cannot worthily discharge. Tor the apostle subjoins the fol- 
lowing statement as proof— 

"Oc ἐστιν apxi— Who is the beginning.” This term has been 
variously understood. Storr and Flatt reduce its significance by 
making it mean governor of the world; Calvin comes near the 
true view in his paraphrase—initiwm secundae et novae creations ; 
Baumgarten, nearer still, when he defines it by Urheber, origi- 
nator. Meyer, De Wette, Huther, Biihr, Steiger, and others, 
join it to the following words, as if the full clause were— 
ἀρχὴ..--«τῶν νεκρῶν. Meyer and De Weitte take it simply in a 
temporai sense (πρὸ πάντων ἀναστάς as Theophylact has it), 
and as if it were equivalent to ἀπαρχή, which some MSS. 
even have,’ while the other expositors give the sense of prin- 
cipium. Such a construction is certainly very strange, especi- 
ally when we consider that ἐκ precedes τῶν νεκρῶν. We incline 
to keep the word by itself, and to regard it as being much the 
same as in the phrase, Rev. i. 14- -τὀἧο͵αρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ 
@:ov—the cause or source of the creation of God. Wisdom of 
Solomon, xii. 16; xiv. 27. The noun, standing by itself, 
would seem to point out Christ in His solitary grandeur as the 
prime source of all the blessmgs and honours detailed in the 
subsequent verses. The relative has plainly a causal sense, 


1 Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 231. 
2 Such as 17, 46, 63; Chrysostom’s text, and that of Gicumenius. 


COLOSSIANS I. 18. 65 


so that the connection is “He is Head of the body,—the 
church,—inasmuch as He is the one source of its existence 
and blessings ;” and He is so, as being “the first-begotten from 
the dead,” and, as verse 20 shows, the Reconciler of men to 
God by the blood of His cross. This exegesis gives a special 
dignity to the epithet—Christ, the First source of existence 
and blessing. But for His gracious intervention, no church 
had ever existed, and no salvation been ever enjoyed. Having 
ransomed the church by His blood, may He not rule it by His 
power, and be “the Head ?” 

And no matter what blessing is enjoyed, what its kind or 
amount, He is its author. There may be subordinate supplies 
—wells of water; but His rain from heaven fills them. Con- 
viction of sin and repentance unto life are produced by a 
glimpse of Christ. ‘They shall look on Me whom they have 

- 3) . . 
pierced, and mourn.” The pardon of guilt comes directly from 
Him; and His death provides for the sanctification of the heart; 
His Spirit the agent, and His word the instrument. Every 
grace may be traced to Him, and it bears the heart away to 
Him as the source of saving influence. He has originated 
salvation, and He gives it. He is in the most unlimited sense 
—apyi— the beginning.” And we are the more confirmed in 
this view of keeping dpy separated from the following clause 
and giving it an absolute meaning, from the fact that, in the 
Philonic vocabulary,! it is a name of the Logos, and was pro- 
bably introduced by the apostle with a special reference to 
current and insidious errors. The description proceeds— 

1 Kal γὰρ dexn.... καὶ λόγος. De Confus. Ling. p. 380, vol. iii. ed. Pfeiffer. 
The first source of all was also named by Cerinthus, as in the Latin of Irenaeus, 
principalitas. Adver. Haeres. p. 253, Opera, vol. i. ed. Stieren, 1853. As to the 
question whether the Logos of Philo be a person, or only the personification of an 
attribute, a question, both sides of which are discussed by Gfrorrer, Liicke, Dorner, 
Dihne, Pye Smith, and other distinguished scholars, we quite agree with the view 
of Schaff (Church History, i. p. 213), that Philo himself vibrated between the two 
opinions, and took each as it served his turn. There is no doubt, that when he calls 
his Logos, archangel, interpreter, High Priest, the first-born Son of God, he seems 
to give Him a personal existence; and there is little doubt that he appears to regard 
Him only asa species of personification, when he names Him the reflection of God, 
the ideal world, the medium of the sensible world, the summation of those ideas 
which are the archetypes of all being.—Dorner, Entwickelungs geschichte der Lehre 
von der Person Christi, 2 ed. vol. i. pp. 24, 25. Also, Liicke, Commentar iiber das 


Evang. Johannis, i. p. 249, et seq. Bonn, 1840. 
KF 


66 COLOSSIANS I. 18. 


Πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν --- “ First-begotten from the 
dead.” In Rev. i. 5, we find but the simple genitive. It is 
out of the question, on the part of Bullinger, Keuchenius, 
Aretius, Erasmus, and Schleiermacher to connect ἀρχή with 
mowrdroxoc—an abstract with a concrete. We must take this 
word as in the former clause—‘ first-begotten of every 
creature,” and regard it as referring, not to priority of time, 
but to dignity and station. He was not the first that rose in 
absolute priority, nor simply the first who rose, no more to die. 
But He was among the dead; and as He rose from the midst 
of them, He became their chief, or Lord—“the first-fruits 
of them that sleep.” From Him the dead will get deliverance, 
for He rose in their name, and came—zx—out from among 
them as their representative. In this character He destroyed 
“him that had the power of death.” Not only when He was 
“cut off, but not for Himself,” did He “finish transgression, and 
make an end of sin,” but He “abolished death.” Nay, He 
has the keys of death and Hades. His people rise in virtue 
of His power. The instances of resurrection prior to His own 
were only proofs that the dead might be raised, but His 
resurrection was a pledge that they should be raised. The 
Lord Himself ‘shall descend; the trump shall sound, and 
myriads of sleepers shall start into life; no soul shall lose, and 
none mistake its partner; neither earth nor sea shall retam one 
occupant. But He is not only the pledge, He is also the 
pattern. His people shall be raised in immortal youth and 
beauty ; their vile bodies fashioned like unto His glorious 
body, and therefore no longer animal frames, but so ethe- 
realized and attempered as to be able to dwell in a world which 
“flesh and blood cannot inherit "---ἰο see God and yet live, 
to bear upon them without exhaustion the exceeding weight 
of glory, and to serve, love, and enjoy, the unvailed Divinity 
without end. 

Ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων--- In order that in 
all things He should have the pre-eminence.” The conjunc- 
tion appears to be telic, and not merely ecbatic, as Bihr 
supposes. It indicates, not the result, but the final purpose 
of the entire economy. And we cannot, with Meyer and 
others, connect this clause solely with the one that goes before 


COLOSSIANS I, 18. 67 


it, as if His pre-eminence rested merely upon the fact that He 
was the first-born from the dead. The clause has its root in the 
entire paragraph, as we shall immediately endeavour to show. 
The emphatic verb πρωτεύω does not occur anywhere else in 
the New Testament, but we find it in the Septuagint, 2 Macc. 
vi. 18; Est. v. 2; Xenophon, Cyrop. 8, 2, 28; Joseph. Antig. 
9, 8, 3; Plutarch, de Educat. lib. c. 13, where this very phrase 
occurs ;' Plato, Leges, 692, p. 54, vol. vii. opera, ed. Bekker, 
1826. Two distinct meanings have been assigned to ἐν πᾶσιν. 
1. It may be taken as masculine, “among all persons,” as is 
the opinion of Anselm, Beza, Cocceius, Heinrichs, Piscator, 
and Usteri. If the clause referred simply to the νεκροί, of 
which Jesus is the first-born, then we should have expected 
the article—iv τοῖς πᾶσιν. That ἐν following πρωτεύω may 
refer to persons, Kypke has shown in his note on this verse, 
though παρά is the preposition as frequently employed, and more 
usually the simple genitive. 2. The phrase ἐν πᾶσιν is more 
naturally taken by the majority in a neuter sense, “in every 
thing,” or “in all respects.” This is the ordinary meaning of 
the phrase in the New Testament. 2 Cor. xi. 6; Ephes. 1. 
Gece Lib, aie 11 2 Tim. it 7: Titus a. ὃ... 1 Pet. ive 11. 
The usus loquendi is therefore in favour of this interpretation, 
“first in all points ;” or as Theophylact says, in all things—roi¢ 
περὶ αὐτὸν θεωρουμένοις--“ in all things which have refer- 
ence to Himself;” as Chrysostom has it, πανταχοῦ πρῶτος. 
The verb γένηται is not to be confounded with the verb of 
simple existence. The meaning is not, that He might be, but 
that “He might become.” Acts x.4; Rom. ii. 19; Heb. 
v. 12. The verb in such cases denotes the manifestation 
of result—that He may show Himself to be in all things Frrst. 
We do not say, with Meyer and Huther, that this pre-eminence 
is looked upon as wholly future, and as only to be realized 
at the resurrection. If we held the close and sole connection 
of πρωτεύων with πρωτότοκος, we should be obliged to keep 
this view partially, but not to its full extent; for, in respect 
to the dead, as now dead, Jesus stands out as the First who 
has so risen from a similar state. The meaning, then, 


1 See Wetstein, in loc. 


68 COLOSSIANS I. 18. 


is, that in consequence of His being what the apostle has just 
described Him to be, He has in all things the primacy; that 
He stands out as First to the universe, for He is its visible 
God, its Creator and Preserver; and He is the Head of the 
Church, the fount of spiritual blessing, the ‘ Resurrection and 
the Life.” 

As the image—eixwv—of the invisible God He has the pre- 
eminence. For He is without date of origin or epoch of 
conclusion. No eclipse shall sully the splendours of His 
nature. What He has been, He is, and He si 2!l be. “Nor 15 
His Essence bounded by any circumference, put it is every- 
where, undiluted by boundless extension. His mind com- 
prises all probabilities, and has decided all certainties. His 
power knows no limit of operation, and is unexhausted by 
effort. His truth is pure as the solar beam, and the fulness of in- 
finite love dwells in His heart. But such Divine glory is common 
to the Godhead, and He shares it equally with Father and 
Spirit. Even here, however, He is First; for He has visi- 
bility, which the Father and Spirit have not; and He is the 
God of the universe, whom it sees, recognizes, and adores. 
Nay, more, He has cast a new lustre over His original glory 
by His incarnation and death. He has won for Himself an 
imperishable renown. This dignity so earned by Him is 
specially called His own, in contradistinction from His prior 
and essential glory, and it is His peculiar and valued posses- 
sion. Robed in His native majesty, which has been aug- 
mented by the mediatorial crown, is He not the most glorious 
being in the universe? Matt. xxv. 31; John xvii. 24. 

And He has pre-emimence as Creator, for creation is His 
special work. It existed in idea in the mind of God, but it 
was brought into existence by the power of Christ. These _ 
worlds on worlds, which in their number and vastness con- 
found us, have Him as artificer, for He “telleth the number of 
the stars, and calleth them by their names.” Creation owns 
Him as Lord. The natural impulse is to reason from effect 
upwards to cause—‘“‘ from nature up to nature’s God:” but the 
God whom such instinctive logic discovers, and whose might 
and wisdom, science and philosophy illustrate with rich, 
varied, profound, and increasing, nay, interminable examples, is 


COLOSSIANS I. 19. 69 


none other than this “ First-born of every creature.” On His 
arm hangs the universe, and He receives its homage. Above 
all, there is matchless grandeur in the constitution of His 
person as the Head of the Church. The Father is pure 
Divinity, and so is the Spirit: the wisest, greatest, and best ; 
infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in essence, attributes, and 
character. But the Son has another nature, one in person 
with His Deity. The divine is not dwarfed into the human, 
nor has the human been absorbed into the divine, but both 
co-exist without mixture or confusion. The incarnation of 
Jesus illuminates the Old Testament as a promise, and fills the 
New Testament as a fact. Possessed of this composite nature, 
Christ is distinguished from every being: none like Him in 
unapproachable mystery—as the God-man who has gained 
His capital supremacy by His agony and cross. Was ever 
suffermg like His in origin, intensity, nature, or design ? 
Again, as the source of blessing, has He not primal rank? 
These spiritual gifts possess a special value, as springing 
from His blood, and as being applied by His Spirit. He is 
seated in eminence as the dispenser of common gifts to His 
universe, but He is throned in pre-eminence as the provider 
and bestower of spiritual blessings to His Church. Are not 
His instructions without a rival in adaptation, amount, and 
power? What parallel can be found to His example, so 
perfect and so fascinating, that of a man that men may see, 
and admire, and imitate; while it contains in itself, at the 
same time, the secret might of Divinity to mould into its 
blessed resemblance the heart of all His followers who are 
“changed into the same image from glory to glory?” In 
short, there is such wondrous singularity in the glory of 
Christ’s person and work, so much that gives Him a radiance 
all His own, and an elevation high and apart, that it may be 
truly said, that in all things He has the pre-eminence. None 
like Christ is the decision of faith : none but Christ is the motto 
of love. The apostle assigns another or additional reason— 
(Ver. 19.) Ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν. A different spelling of 
the word is exhibited in some of the MSS. such as A, D, E,— 
ηὐδόκησεν, but without authority. Schmid supposes that πλή- 
owua is the nominative ; and he understands it thus—the entire 


70 COLOSSIANS I, 19. 


Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ. We believe, with 
the majority of expositors, that ὁ θεός is to be supplied as the 
nominative, and not τῷ θεῷ, im the dative. Matt. m. 17; 
Luke iti. 22. The full syntax is found in 1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. 
1.15. But we cannot hold, with some, that the pronoun αὐτῷ; 
_ refers to God, for we take it as still poimting to Him who has 
been the prime subject of discourse. To make ὁ χριστός the 
nominative, as Conybeare does, implies the sense that Christ 
is not only the means, but the end in this reconciliation, for the 
reading would plainly be in the next verse—“ and by Himself 
to reconcile all things unto Himself,” a mode of speech not in 
accordance with Pauline usage. Christ reconciles, not to 
Himself, but to God. We incline also to connect the clause 
immediately with the preceding one, and not generally with 
the previous paragraph. “That im all things He might have 
the pre-eminence ;” for, in order to this, “it pleased God—it 
was His good purpose—that in Him should all fulness dwell.” 
The pre-eminence, therefore, could not but be His. The verb 
does not mean that it was God’s desire that all fulness should 
dwell in Christ, but that it was His resolve, as being His 
pleasure.’ ᾿ 

Πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι. On the meaning of πλήρωμα 
we have spoken at length under Ephes. i. 23. In the verb 
the idea of past and continued residence is presented. We 
see no reason to deviate here from the meaning assigned to 
the noun in the place referred to, so that we must hold, against 
Bihr and Steiger, that the word has a passive, and not an 
active signification, denoting, not that which fills up, but the 
state of fulness, or the contents of it. But to what does this 
fulness refer ? 

1. It is a most extraordinary exegesis of Theodoret and 
Severianus,” followed by Baumgarten-Crusius, Heinrichs, Wahl, 
and Schleiermacher, that πλήρωμα signifies the multitude 
which compose the church. ‘This view has been exposed by 
us under Ephes. 1. 23. Here it would yield no tolerable 


1 In reference to the meaning and derivation of the verb, there is an elaborate note 
of Fritzsche, Comment. in Ep. ad Roman. ii. 369. Sce also Sturz, p. 168; Lobeck 
ad Phryn. p. 456. 

2 Catena, p. 310. 


COLOSSIANS I. 19. ud 


meaning, and would not be in harmony at all with the context. 
Pierce follows the rendering of Castalio— it seemed good to 
God the Father to inhabit all fulness by Christ.” 

2. Some limit the meaning of the clause by basing their 
interpretation of it on a following verse in i. 9, “all the 
fulness of the Godhead.” But there is no reason to subjoin 
the genitive τῆς θεότητος, in this place, the meaning here 
being more general and sweeping in its nature. 

3. This fulness is referred by Cicumenius, Huther, and 
others, to the Divine essence. Servetus based, according to 
Beza, a species of Pantheism on this declaration. But such 
an idea cannot be entertained, because the Divine essence 
dwelt in Christ unchangeably, and not by the Father’s con- 
sent or purpose. It is His in His own right, and not by 
paternal pleasure. Whatever dwells in Christ by the Father’s 
pleasure is official, and not essential; relational, and not ab- 
solute in its nature. . 

4. The proper exegesis, then, is, that all fulness of grace, or 
saving blessings, dwells in Christ—a species of fulness, the 
contents of which are described in the following verse. John 
i. 14—16. We do not exclude the work of creation as a 
result of this fulness laid up in the Image and First-born, but 
the apostle seems to connect it more with the process and 
results of redemption. Whatever is needed to save a fallen 
world, and restore harmony to the universe, is treasured 
up in Him—is in Him. It was indispensable that the 
law should be magnified while its violators were forgiven, 
lest the cireuit of the Divine jurisdiction should be nar- 
rowed, or its influence counteracted; and there is a fulness 
of merit in the sufferings of Jesus which has shed an im- 
perishable lustre on the nature and government of God. 
That copious variety of gifts connected with the Christian 
economy has its source in Jesus. Knowledge and faith, 
pardon and life, purity and hope, comfort and strength, im- 
pulse and check, all that quickens and all that sustains, each 
in its place and connection is but an emanation of this unex- 
hausted plenty. And there is “all” fulness; abundance of 
blessing, and of every species of blessing, in proper time and 
order. As the bounties of providence are scattered around us 


12 COLOSSIANS I. 19. 


with rich munificence, and consist not of one kind of gift 
which might become fatal in its monotony, but of an immense 
variety, which is essential, singly and in combination, to the 
sustenance of life; so the blessings which spring out of this 
fulness are not only vast in number and special in adaptation, 
by themselves, but in their mutual relations and dependence 
they supply every necessity, and fill the entire nature with 
increasing satisfaction and delight. The impartation of know- 
ledge, though it grew to the “riches of the full assurance of 
understanding,” could not of itself minister to every want; 
nor yet could the pardon of sin severed from the benefits 
which flow from it. Therefore, there is secured for us peace 
as well as enlightenment; renovation along with forgiveness : 
condition and character are equally changed; the tear of 
penitence glistens in the radiance of spiritual joy, and the 
germs of perfection ingrafted now are destined for ever to 
mature and expand. Provision moreover would be inade- 
quate without application. Man is not merely informed that 
God is merciful, and that he may come to Him and live; or 
that Christ has died, and that he may believe and be saved; 
or that heaven is open, and that he may enter and be happy. 
Not only is provision ample, but in this fulness appliance is 
secured. Not only has salvation been purchased, but it is 
placed within an available reach, for while the cross is 
erected, the eye is opened, and the vision carried towards 
its bleeding victim; not only has atoning blood been shed, 
but it is sprmkled upon the heart; not only is there the 
promise of a heavenly inheritance, but the soul is purified, 
yea, and “kept by the power of God through faith.” In short, 
every‘grace, as it is needed, and when it is needed, in every 
variety of phasis and operation; every grace, either to nurse 
the babe or sustain. the perfect man, to excite the new life or 
to foster it, to give pardon and the sense of it, faith and the 
full assurance of it, purity and the felt possession of it; every 
blessing, in short, for health or sickness, for duty or trial, for 
life or death, for body or soul, for earth or heaven, for time or 
eternity, is wrapt up in that fulness which dwells in Christ. 

It may be that πλήρωμα was a term employed by the heretics 
who disturbed the Colossian church, but we cannot lay such 


COLOSSIANS I. 20. 73 


stress upon this circumstance as is done by Bihr and Steiger, 
nor safely deduce from it an inevitable exegesis. There is no 
doubt that πλήρωμα was a distinctive epithet in the vocab- 
ulary of the heretics of a later age, such as Valentinus, and in 
the teaching ascribed to Cermthus. It is found also among 
the peculiar terms of the Kabbalists. But it would be rash to 
affirm that the apostle used the word because these heretics 
abused it, for in his days the germ of that theosophy and 
mysticism had only found existence, and neither the system 
nor the nomenclature was fully developed. 

(Ver. 20.) Kai δι αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς 
αὐτὸν---- And by Him to reconcile all things to Himself.” 
This sentence still hangs upon the verb εὐδόκησε. Eipnvo- 
ποιήσας agrees with θεός, the understood nominative to 
εὐδόκησε. God having made peace by the blood of His cross 
(Christ's), was pleased to reconcile by Him (Christ) all things 
to Himself. If the participle εἰρηνο. referred to Jesus, we 
should have expected it to be in the accusative before the 
infinitive. The instances adduced by Steiger, who holds this 
view, to prove the occurrence here of a species of anacoluthon, 
are not in point. On the meaning of ἀποκαταλ. we have 
spoken under Ephes. 11. 16, and need not repeat our remarks. 
The phrase ra πάντα, in this verse, must be identical in 
meaning with ra πάντα in the 16th verse—created by Jesus 
and for Him; and ra πάντα in the 17th verse—preserved 
by Him. The meaning is further developed and specified in 
the last clause—eire τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; εἴτε TA ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς--- 
all things “ whether they be things on earth, or things in 
heaven.” The apostle seems thus to refer to the universe— 
specially the intelligent universe. The reconciliation is effected 
through Christ, an idea repeated by the apostle in the 22d 
and 23d verses. 

1. It is surely a low and pointless interpretation of the 
words to refer them, with Junker, Heinrichs, Schleusner, and 
others, to Jew and Gentile, for the passage is widely different 
from the paragraph in the 2d chapter of Ephesians; or with 
Beza, Crocius, and Wolf, to understand “things in heaven” 
of the happy souls of the departed; or with Schleiermacher, 
to suppose the apostle to refer to earthly and ecclesiastical 


14 COLOSSIANS I. 20. 


relationships. ‘The previous context plainly condemns such a 
narrow and groundless interpretation. 

2. On the other hand, it is going beyond the record to base 
upon the words the dogma of universal restoration. Evil 
spirits, and finally impenitent men are left in unrelieved gloom. 
Those who reject this reconciliation, and depart from the 
world in unbelief, fall into the hands of a God “ who is clear 
when He judges.” 

On this passage, Davenant says truly—torquet interpretes et 
vicissim ab illis torquetur. De Wette, indeed, referring to Job 
iv. 18, and xv. 15, imagines that angels need some process 
of peacemaking, or rather of perfecting—a notion akin to 
Calvin’s,' that they were in want of confirmation. 

But supposing that by “things in heaven” we understand 
angels and all other holy intelligences, m what sense can it be 
said that they need or receive reconciliation? Some elude the 
difficulty, and argue that the reconciliation is not between 
God and perfect spirits, but between them and redeemed 
humanity. Thus, Theodoret—ovvile τοῖς ἐπιγείοις τὰ ἐπου- 
pavia: and such is the view of Chrysostom, Augustine, and Pe- 
lagius, of Cameron, Dickson, and perhaps the majority. This 
is a truth, but perhaps not the whole truth intended. The 
language implies more than this exegesis contains, for all things 
in heaven are not merely reconciled to all things on earth, 
but both are at the same time reconciled to God. And we 
cannot espouse the opinion of Huther, Bihr, and Olshausen, 
who make the reference in εἰς αὐτόν to Christ, regarding Him 
as both means and end. The idea is not in unison with 


1 Inter Deum et Angelos longe diversa ratio, illic enim nulla defectio, nullum pec- 
catum, ideoque nullum divortium. Sed tamen duabus de causis Angelos quoque 
opportuit cum Deo pacificari: nam quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non 
erant, nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati. Hoc autem non parvum est momentum 
ad pacis cum Deo perpétuitatem, fixum habere statum in iustitia, ne casum aut 
defectionem amplius timeat. Deinde in hac ipsa obedientia, quam praestant Deo, non 
est tam exquisita perfectio, ut Deo omni ex parte et citra veniam satisfaciat. Atque 
huc procul dubio spectat sententia ista ex libro Iob (4, 18.), In Angelis suis reperiet 
iniquitatem: nam si de diabolo exponitur, quid magnum? pronuntiat autem illic 
Spiritus summam puritatem sordere, si ad Dei iustitiam exigatur. Constituendum 
igitur, non esse tantum in Angelis iustitiae, quod at plenam cum Deo coniunctionem 
sufficiat, itaque pacificatore opus habent, per cuius gratiam penitus Deo adhaereant. 
In loc. ° 


διῶ td 


COLOSSIANS I. 20. 75 


Pauline phraseology, for God is usually regarded as the ulti- 
mate end. But the idea in this case would be, that all beings 
are brought by the death of Christ to obey Him, and to find 
in Him their common centre. The dative, indeed, is com- 
monly employed, as in Ephes. 1. 16; Rom. v. 10; but the 
employment here of the accusative with εἰς may indicate some- 
thing unusual in the verb—may denote to reconcile for, or 
in reference to Himself, that is, God, He being regarded gen- 
erally as the end of this reconciliation. Reconciliation to God 
is thus predicated of the “things in heaven,” though they had 
never revolted. Nor can we simply declare, with Melancthon, 
Cameron, and Bihr, that the sentiment of this verse is identical 
with that found in Ephes. i. 10, and that ἀποκαταλλάξαι is of 
the same meaning as ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι. Indeed, as Meyer 
well suggests, the bringing together under one head is the 
result of the reconciliation which is here described. The verb 
avoxar. is defined by Suidas as meaning φιλοποιῆσαι---ἰο 
make friends; and Fritzsche renders it prorsus reconciliare.? 
The ἀπό, in composition, does not signify “again,” as Passow 
erroneously gives it. [Ephes. 1. 16.] This reconciliation we 
understand in its result—zic—and as denoting unalterable union, 
—that he might reconcile all things and unite them so reconciled 
to Himself. Such a pregnant meaning of verbs is no uncom- 
mon occurrence. 2 Tim. iv. 18—cdce εἰς τήν βασιλείαν, 
will save and translate us to His kingdom. Mark vin. 19— 
ὅτε τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους ἔκλασα εἰς τοὺς πεντακισχιλίους, When 
I broke and distributed the five loaves to the five thousand. 
Acts xxi. 24, &.; Winer, ὃ 66, e; Xenophon, Anab. 11, 3, 
11; Polyb. 8,11; Odyss. 1.14. There needed no atonement 
for innocent creatures, but they must have felt the disruption 
of sin, and seen the terrible anger of God against it. May 
they not have trembled at the bare idea of apostacy, and may 
not the very suspicion of it have made them stand before God 
with more of awe than love? When the angels beheld their 
fellows sin so grievously, when they mourned over the tar- 
nished brightness of their lost and exiled natures, might not 
the memory of the melancholy spectacle fill them with terror, 


1 Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. i. 278. 


10 COLOSSIANS I. 20. 


and as they felt themselves placed in a jeopardous crisis, 
might they not shrink as they gazed upon the unsullied justice 
and inexorable vengeance of Jehovah-king? Might not holi- 
ness unrelieved by an act of grace, be ever impressing the 
conviction that “it is a fearful thing to fall mto the hands of 
the living God?” For sin was possible to them, and what had 
happened might again take place, while the penalty of sin was 
as swift in its descent as it was unspeakable in its burden, and 
irremediable in its effects. The flashing majesty of the throne 
might still the pulse of the universe, or cause it to throb in 
subdued and solemnalarm. ‘The radiance of grace had not been 
seen to play upon the sceptre of righteousness. Acquiescence 
in the Divine rectitude might not conquer trepidation, and the 
love which encircled them might not cast out all fear of lapse 
and punishment. But when they found out the ineffable 
stores of the Divine benignity towards man—in the mission 
and death of Jesus, in the untold abundance and fulness of 
blessings conferred upon him, in a vast salvation secured at a 
vast expense, and in a happy alliance concluded between them 
and the ransomed church—did they not share in the same 
reconciliation and feel themselves drawn nearer a God of 
grace, whom they can now love with a higher thrill and praise 
with a more rapturous hallelujah? In being re-united with 
man they feel themselves brought closer to God, and though 
they sing of a salvation which they did not require, still they 
experience the Saviour’s tenderness, and are charmed with the 
reign of His crowned humanity. The gloom that sin had 
thrown over them is dispelled; and creation as one united 
whole rejoices in the presence of God. The one Reconciler is 
the head of these vast dominions, and in Him meet and merge 
the discordant elements which sin had introduced. The 
breach is healed. Gabriel embraces Adam, and both enjoy a 
vicinity to God, which but for the reconciliation of the cross 
would never have been vouchsafed to either. The humanity 
of Jesus bringing all creatures around it, unites them to 
God in a bond which never before existed—a bond which 
has its origin in the mystery of redemption. Thus all things 
in heaven and earth feel the effect of man’s renovation ; 
unnumbered worlds, so thickly strewn as to appear but 


COLOSSIANS I, 20. i) 


dim and nebulous masses, are pervaded by its harmonizing 
influence; a new attraction binds them to the throne. Bless- 
ings which naked Deity might not be able to bestow are 
poured out upon them by the incarnate Lord “ who filleth all 
in all;” and the exhibition of love in the agonies of Christ 
may have secured what unalloyed equity could not, may have 
placed the universe for ever beyond the reach of apostacy and 
revolt. Then at length starts into view the blessed kingdom 
—‘the new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth right 
eousness.” 

Nor need we wonder at the infinite results of the death of 
Christ, when we reflect, that, as the apostle has described Him, 
He is Creator, Preserver, and End of all things. Creation, 
to its farthest verge, could not but be affected by the grace 
and the death of Him who gave to it its original being and 
still supplies the means of its continued existence. When He 
laid aside the splendours of the Godhead, and walked a man 
upon the footstool, and died on a world and for a world which 
He had made, to satisfy Divine justice, and glorify the prin- 
ciples of the Divme administration, it might be anticipated 
that the effect of that stupendous enterprise should be felt 
everywhere, diffusing the attractive power of a new spiritual 
gravitation among all things, “whether they be things on 
earth or things in heaven.” 

Εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῖ----“ Hay- 
ing made peace by the blood of His cross.” We understand 
the participle to be in agreement with θεός, as the nominative 
to εὐδόκησε, and not with χριστός, as the Greek Fathers, and 
even Storr and Steiger, construe the clause. The aorist par- 
ticiple here is of the same tense with the aorist infinitive in 
the preceding clause, and it points out the method by which 
reconciliation has been secured. The blood of His, that is, , 
Christ's cross, was the source of peace—the reference being 
to the atoning sacrifice presented on Calvary. Blood shed on 
earth creates feuds to be extinguished only by other blood; 
it calls up the avenging kinsman to wait, watch, pursue, and 
retaliate; but the blood of Christ’s violent and vicarious death 
brings peace, restores alliance between heaven and earth. 
While we look on the paternal aspect of God’s character, we 


78 COLOSSIANS I. 20. 


must not overlook His position as moral governor—bound to 
inflict the penalty annexed to the violation of His statutes. 
[Ephes. ii. 16.] He must visit the sinner with His judicial 
displeasure; or as the scholastic theology of Bede phrased it, 
“in every one of us He hated what we had done, He loved 
what He Himself had done.” ‘The justice of God, as Nitzsch' 
says, is a necessary and inseparable idea of His love. The 
antithesis of mercy and justice is no longer unresolved, nor do 
they neutralize one another. Sin at the same time creates 
enmity in the human heart toward God, an enmity removed also 
by faith in the great propitiation. Thus the cross is the sym- 
bol of peace. He who died on it possessed God’s nature, the 
offended party, and man’s nature, the offending party ; and thus 
being qualified to mediate between them, His blood was 
poured out as a peace-offering. The law is satisfied, and 
guilty sinners are freed from the curse: an amnesty is pro- 
claimed; God reconciles the world unto Himself, and justified 
man has peace with God. 

The apostle repeats δι αὐτοῦ to give prominence to the 
efficacious agency of His Son. “By Him,” that is, by His 
blood, and by all the work which His mediatorial person is so 
well fitted to carry on and consummate. ‘The last clause 
explains the preceding πάντα. As if there might be doubt in 
some minds; or as if some ascribed a limited influence to a 
Jewish death upon Jewish soil, the apostle exclaims ‘“all”— 
‘whether they be things in earth,” which is first and specially 
interested ; or whether they be “things in heaven.” Chrysos- 
tom, to support his view, erroneously and ungrammatically 
connects this clause with the one immediately before it, as if 
the peace made by the blood of the cross was simply and 
solely peace between things in heaven and things on earth. 
In fine, the entire process, as the connection of this verse with 
the preceding one shows, springs from the Divine pleasure— 
it so ‘ pleased” Him. 

Now, if there was a tendency among the false teachers in 
Colosse to depreciate Jesus, lower the value, and restrict the 
extent of His saving work; if they derogated either from His 


1 System der Christlichen Lehre, § 80, 5th Auflage, Bonn, 1844. 


COLOSSIANS I. 21. 79 


personal dignity or official prerogative, the apostle applies a 
mighty and sufficient counteractive. That Saviour whom the 
apostles preached was no creature, but Himself the Creator; 
was invested with no provincial government, but ruled and 
preserved the wide realms of space; was no subordinate spirit 
in the celestial crowd, but one who is the end as well as author 
of all things ; is supreme Lord of His Church, as is most due; 
and as He possesses all fulness within Himself, and has by the 
shedding of His blood restored harmony to the universe, 
therefore, now, in every point He has an unchallenged pre- 
eminence. On the dark background of an old theosophic 
heresy there shines out this starry halo of mediatorial merit 
and renown. 

(Ver. 21.) Kat ὑμᾶς, ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους καὶ 
ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ 
ἀποκατήλλαξεν--“ And yet now He has reconciled you who 
were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
works.” The apostle turns directly to the Colossians, and 
applies to their experience the results of these more general 
statements. And he does not disguise the truth when he 
describes their past condition—zvoré. Καὶ ὑμᾶς, “you even.” 
Hartung, p. 125. The participle ὄντας occurs before ἀπηλλ. 
Jelf, ὃ 375, 4. [Amnddor. Ephes. ii. 12; iv. 18] It 
here denotes that spiritual alienation from God which char- 
acterized the heathen world. Though the term God is not | 
expressed, the idea is plainly implied. They had strayed so far 
from God that they had lost all view of His unity and spirit- 
uality, His holiness and His love, and felt no longer the hal- 
lowing influence of His existence, majesty, and government. 
This severance from God was the early fruit of sin, for when 
the Divine Being descended to paradise, as was His wont, the 
guilty Adam acknowledged the impulse of this alienation 
when he attempted to hide “himself from the presence of the 
Lord God among the trees of the garden.” So severed, they 
needed re-union. Nay, not only were they aliens, but enemies 
-ο-Όἠκθρούς. We see no reason to adopt Meyer's view, and take 
the adjective in a passive sense—objects of the Divine enmity, 
a meaning which it does not bear in Rom. v. 10. We prefer 
the usual and active sense, as seen in the common phrase 


80 COLOSSIANS I. 21. 


6 ἐχθρός; and it is superfluous on the part of Calovius to unite 
both acceptations. That enmity had its seat τῇ διανοίᾳ which 
Meyer is obliged to render, with Luther, “on account of your 
mind ”—hated on account of your corrupt mind. ‘This enmity 
toward God was in the mind. [διάνοια, Ephes. uu. 3.] The 
noun represents the seat of thought, or rather of disposition. 
Luke i. 51; 1 Chron. xxix. 18. 

The connection of this with the next clause has been 
variously understood. Michaelis gratuitously renders “ en- 
mity in consequence of pre-eminence in evil works.” LEras- 
mus is as wide of the mark in his explanation—znimici, 
cui? menti, etenim qui carni servit, repugnat rationi. Biihr, 
relying on the usage of διανοεῖν being followed by ἐν, con- 
nects the two clauses very closely—operibus malis intenta, 
peccatorum studiosa. We incline to take the clauses as 
separate statements in order, the first as describing the seat 
of enmity, and the second as marking the sphere of its 
development. It is lodged in the mind, but it embodies itself 
in deeds; and those deeds are “ wicked,” are in harmony with 
the source of activity. The apostle charges them not merely 
with spiritual and latent hostility to God, but with the mani- 
festation of that hostility in open acts of unnatural rebellion. 
It is not a neutral alienation, but one characterized by posi- 
tive enmity. The charge may be easily substantiated. No 
thoughts are more unwelcome to men, none less frequently in 
their mind, than God. Men may like an ideal God of their 
own creation, such an one as themselves have invested with 
a fictitious divinity, but the God of the gospel stirs up opposi- 
tion; His holiness alarms them; and their heart is filled with 
prejudice against His scheme of salvation, because it so 
humbles the creature by pressing on him as a ruined and help- 
less sinner a gratuitous pardon which he could never win; and 
because, in urging him to the possession of holiness, it neces- 
sitates a total revolution in all his habits and desires. It is a 
melancholy indictment: antagonism to infinite purity and love: 
sins committed in violation of a law “holy, and just, and 
good.” It was true of the heathen world, and it is true gen- 
erally of fallen humanity, that there is alienation, that such 
alienation creates enmity, and that this enmity proves its 


COLOSSIANS I. 21. 81 


virulence and disloyalty in repeated transgressions.! Some 
of the Fathers, such as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome, 
following an unwarranted reading found in D,! E, τῆς δια- 
volac αὐτοῦ, render—enemies to His, that is, God’s mind. 

Νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν. This reading of the verb has the 
high authority of A, C, D™, E, J, K, almost all the Ver- 
sions, and many of the Fathers. Codex B has ἀποκατηλλάγητε, 
a form which Lachmann follows; while D', F, G, and some of 
the Latin Fathers, have the participle ἀποκαταλλαγέντες. The 
peculiarity of construction has apparently given rise to these 
various lections, but the Textus Receptus is best supported. 
The order adopted by Lachmann gives us this connection 
—“It pleased God that in Him should all fulness dwell, and that 
He should reconcile all things to Himself; and even you, once 
aliens and enemies (but ye are now reconciled), even you it 
pleased Him to present, holy and perfect, before Him.” The 
same parenthetical connection might be maintained by keep- 
ing the verb in the active. Or the first clause may form a 
pendant to the preceding verse—‘“ It pleased Him to reconcile 
all things to Himself, and you too, though ye were enemies in 
your mind by wicked works.” But these forms of construction 
are intricate and needless. We prefer beginning a new sen- 
tence with καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ, and then παραστῆσαι, in the follow- 
ing verse, becomes the infinitive of design. Nor do we 
perceive any grounds for changing the nominative, God 
being still the subject, as is the view of Zanchius, Ben- 
gel, Bihr, Boehmer, Huther, Meyer, against that of the 
Greek Fathers, with Beza, Calvin, Crocius, Estius, Heinrichs, 
and De Wette, which refers the nominative to Christ. The 
work of reconciliation is God’s. Man does not win his 
way back to the Divine favour by either costly offering or 
profound penitence. God reunites him to Himself; has 
not only provided for such an alliance, but actually forms and 
cements it. 

The apostle has dwelt at length on the dignity and majesty 
of Jesus, but without hesitation he speaks here of His incar- 
nate state, for in Him there was a union of extremes, of God 

1 As Photius says, they were enemies, for they were seen—r& ἐχθρῶν πράπτοντες. 


Apud CEcumen. zn Joc. 
G 


82 COLOSSIANS I. 22, 


and man—of earth and heaven. Indeed, the incarnation, 
rightly understood, enhances the Redeemer’s greatness. The 
spiritually sublime is truly seen in His condescension and 
death. So, he adds— 

(Ver. 22.) Ἔν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου 
—‘‘In the body of His (Christ's) flesh through death.” 
Sirach xxiii. 16. The clause has a remarkable distinctness. 
Reconciliation is effected in His body; that body is a genuine 
physical frame, for it is the body of His flesh; and there was 
an actual decease, as by His death peace was secured. They 
were reconciled in His body and by His death, a difference of 
relation being indicated by the prepositions ἐν and διά; the 
latter pointing out the instrumental cause, and the former 
describing the inner sphere of uniting operation which pre- 
ceded that death. Without that fleshly body there could have 
been no death, and the assumption of humanity brought Jesus 
into a fraternal relationship with all His people. The apostle 
thus cautions against a spurious spiritualism, which seems to 
have endangered the Colossian church—as if without an 
atonement man could be redeemed. Marcion, in his quotation 
of the verse, omitted the words τῆς σαρκός. 

We need not say, with Bengel, Schrader, and Olshausen, that 
the apostle writes “the body of His flesh,” lest any one should 
imagine that He might mean His body, the church ;' nor need 
we suppose, with Beza, Huther, Bohmer, and Steiger, that 
there is an express polemical reference to Doketism, or the 
denial of a real humanity to our Lord, though the germs of such 
a heresy might be in existence. Jerome, in one of his letters 
to Pammachius, says of the apostle and the language of this 
verse—apostolus volens corpus Christi carneum et non spirit- 
uale, dereum, tenue, demonstrare. There is no such emphasis 
in the phrase as Estius and Grotius find when they speak of 
such vast results flowing from so feeble an instrument, nor is 
there that contrast between the earthly and glorified body of 
Christ as is suggested by Flatt, Réell, and von Gerlach. The 
purpose of reconciliation is next described. e 

Παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους κατε- 

! Yet Pierce inclines to such a notion, though he says, ‘‘I am not positive in this 
interpretation.” 


COLOSSIANS I. 22. 83 


νώπιον avrov'— To present you holy and blameless, and unre- 
proveable before Him.” This is the infinitive of design. Winer, 
δ 45, 3; Matthiae ii. p. 1234. [Ephes. 1 1. 8.1 The three adjectives 
express generally the same idea, but in different and consecu- 
tive aspects. [‘Aylove καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, Ephes. 
i.4.] There is no ground for the hypothesis of Biihr and 
Bengel, that the three epithets may be thus characterized— 
the first as having reference to God, the second to ourselves, and 
the third to our fellow-men. The first term refers to inner 
consecration, and the purity which it creates and fosters; the 
second shows the development of this purity in the life; and 
the third expresses the result, that heart and life are therefore 
alike unchallengeable, and that neither against the one nor the 
other can any charge be preferred. It cannot be alleged against 
the life that its holiness is but hypocrisy, since that has its 
root in the sanctified spirit; neither can the sanctity of the 
heart be arraigned as imoperative and dead, for it exhibits 
itself in actions of heavenly worth and resemblance. God 
presents them before Himself, not before Christ, as Meyer 
supposes, avrov not being required. This we take to be 
the connection, though some connect the words κατενώπιον 
avrov with the three epithets, as if it described their genuine- 
ness or reality. Such is the connection in Ephes. i. 4, but 
here the phrase seems most naturally connected with the verb 
—to present before Him. The allusion is to the ultimate 
consummation: to no period on earth, but to final acceptance 
before the throne—when the saint shall have come to maturity, 
and his spiritual development shall have been crowned and 
perfected. [Ephes. v. 27.] The question has been raised, 
whether the apostle refers, in this last clause, to the righteous- 
ness of justification, or the holiness of sanctification; to jus- 
titia imputata, as Huther supposes; or to justitia inhaerens, as 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Calvin maintain; or to both, 
as is held by Theodoret, Zanchius, Crocius, Calovius, De 
Wette, and Meyer. [Ephes. 1. 47 Besides that, the terms 
employed by the apostle are inapplicable to justifying right- 
eousness: it may be remarked that the reconciliation which 
the apostle represents as having already taken place, is but 
another form of expressing the blessing of justification— 


84 COLOSSIANS I. 23. 


pardon, and acceptance with God. This privilege was past, but 
the ultimate result which flows from it was still to come. 
Therefore, as this change of state is only a prelude to a change 
of character—as this justification is a step towards such an 
end, it follows, that the holiness realized in that end is that of 
sanctification, the maturity of which is acknowledged in the 
presentation of the saint to God. 1 Cor.i.8; 1 Thess. iii. 
13; v. 23. 

(Ver. 23.) Et ye ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ 
ἑδραῖοι, καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
οὗ ἠκούσατε"----“ If ye continue in the faith, grounded and fast, 
and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye 
have heard.” The clause depends, not, as Bengel intimates, 
on ἀποκατήλλαξεν, but on the nearer verb παραστῆσαι. The 
attainment of spiritual perfection, and the honour of presen- 
tation to God, are dependent on the fact specified in this 
verse. Evye does not imply doubt [Ephes. 1. 2], and so far 
differs from εἴπερ, but there is no reason to render it, with 
Pierce, “because.” ‘If, as is the case, ye continue in the faith ;” 
for τῇ πίστει is connected with ἐπιμένετε, as in Rom. vi. 1; ΧΙ. 
23; 1 Tim. iv. 16;? whereas τεθεμελ. would require ἐπί, as 
in Matt. vii. 25; or ἐν, as in Ephes. 1.18. Continuance in 
the faith is essential to salvation: loss of faith would be for- 
feiture of life. The blessings of Christianity are given without 
interruption only to continuous belief. And that perpetuity of 
faith was not to be a vibratory and superficial state. They 
were to remain in the faith, or saving belief of the truth, 
ἑδραῖοι καὶ τεθέμελιωμένοι----“ grounded and settled.” [Ephes. 
ΠῚ 1.8} 1. Pet. v. 10; 1 Cor. vu. 87; xv. 58). Whe caress 
epithet alludes to the cause, and the second to its effect, for 
what is founded becomes fixed: while the third clause depicts a 
general result—xat μὴ μετακινούμενοι, “and therefore not shaken 
away,” as the use of μή seems to indicate. The adverb μή 
has such a connection of dependence, Kiihner, § 708; Hartung 
ii. pp. 113, 114; Winer, ὃ 59, 1. If they were founded, they 
were fixed, and if both, they could not be moved—amo 


1 ᾿Ἤ κουσάτε is spelt, by an oversight, with a spiritus asper in Tischendorf’s second 


edition. 
2 Aclian, Hist. var. x. 15. Joseph. Antiq. viii. 7, 5. 


COLOSSIANS I. 23. 85 


τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἠκούσατε. [Ephes. 1. 18.] 
See also verse fifth of this chapter. The hope is that blessed 
life revealed by the gospel as its distinctive prospect. That 
gospel is further characterized as “having been preached to 
every creature which is under heaven ”— 

Tov κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ TOV οὐρανὸν. The 
article τῇ before πάσῃ is probably to be expunged, on the 
authority of A, B, C, D', F, G. The general meaning of this 
hyperbole will be found under verse 6. Thomas Aquinas was 
so hard pressed, as to propose a future rendering—praedica- 
bitur. Perhaps, as Meyer proposes, these words are a species 
of confirmation. Apostacy was all the more blameable, for 
they had heard the gospel—a gospel of no narrow diffusion 
and value—a gospel, also, which numbered among its ad- 
herents and preachers, the great name of Paul. There is thus 
a warning in those words of coming danger and seductive 
influence. It is an extraordinary reason which Anselm, 
after Gregory, proposes—that every creature must mean man, 
because man has something in common with every creature ; 
existence with stones, living growth with trees, sense and 
motion with the lower animals, and reason and intellect with 
the angels. 

Thus a life of faith is one of hope, and leads to glory. 
This belief has a conservative power; for it keeps in a jus- 
tified state, and it secures augmenting holiness. While, 
therefore, the perseverance of the saints is a prominent doc- 
trine of Scripture, and a perennial source of consolation, it is 
not inconsistent with exhortations to permanence of faith, and 
warnings of the sad results of deviation and apostacy. He 
who stops short in the race, and does not reach the goal, can- 
not obtain the prize. He who abandons the refuge into which 
he fled for a season, is swept away when the hurricane breaks 
upon him. The loss of faith is the knell of hope. ‘There is 
a way to hell even from the gate of heaven.” As Tertullian 
says: “While the straws of light faith fly away, the mass of 
corn is laid up the purer in the garden of God.” For man is 
not acted on mechanically by the grace of God, but his whole 


' De Praescrip. Haer, iii. vol. ii. p. 5, Opera, ed. Oehler, 1854. 


86 COLOSSIANS I. 24. 


spiritual nature is excited to earnest prayer, and anxious 
effort. Its continuance in the faith is not the unconscious 
impress of an irresistible law, but the result of a diligent use of 
every means by which belief may be fostered and deepened. 
The fact that God keeps believers makes them, therefore, dis- 
trustful of themselves, and dependent upon Him. And the 
confidence of success inspirits them. ‘‘Many a man, from 
having been persuaded that he is destined to attain some great 
object, instead of being lulled into carelessness by this belief, 
has been excited to the most laborious and unwearied efforts, 
such as, perhaps, otherwise, he would not have thought of 
making, for the attaimment of his object.”1 Thus, as ra- 
tional beings are wrought upon by motives, so warnings and 
appeals are addressed to them, and these appliances form 
a special feature of God’s plan of preserving them. The 
apostle thus shows them how much is suspended on their 
perseverance. 

Οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος ---“ Of which I Paul am 
constituted a minister.” [Ephes. iii. 7.] The apostle reverts to 
his solemn inauguration, his past course of active service, and 
the authority under which he had acted. This brief and dis- 
tinct intimation forms a special introduction to the second 
section of the epistle, and the warning against seduction by 
false teachers. 

(Ver. 24.) Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ tuwv—“ Now 
I rejoice in my sufferings for you.” The MSS. D’, E’, F, G, 
with the Vulgate, and many of the Latin Fathers, prefix ὅς. 
The reading probably arose from a homoioteleuton, or repe- 
tition of the last syllable of the previous word—é.dxov ος ὅς. 
Νῦν is not a particle of transition, as Bihr and Liicke® make 
it, but means “at the present time ;” with the chain upon my 
wrist, I rejoice; not, however, as if he had been sorrowful at a 
previous period. The apostle felt that his sufferings had their 
source in his diaconate, and therefore he gloried in them. 
The simple dative, or a participial nominative, is more fre- 
quently used to express the cause of joy; the preposition ἐπί is 
sometimes employed, and occasionally ἐν, as in Philip. i. 18, 


! Whately, quoted in Wood’s Theology, iii. 238. 2 Programm, 1833. 


COLOSSIANS I. 24. 87 


Luke x. 20, and in the clause before us. To rejoice in them is 
not very different from to rejoice over, or upon, or for them, 
only, that in the latter case, the afflictions are regarded as 
external causes of joy, whereas, in the former case, the writer 
represents himself as immersed in them, and rejoicing in 
them. The Stephanic Text adds pov after παθήμασιν, but on 
no great authority. The words ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, which we connect 
with ἐν παθ. and not with χαίρω, have been variously inter- 
preted. They cannot mean “in your stead,” though Steiger 
adopts such a view; and yet, im some sense Paul might be 
regarded as the representative of the churches in heathendom. 
Nor can the words mean, on the other hand, merely “for 
your good,” as Meyer, De Wette, and Huther suppose; or as 
(Ecumenius gives it, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὠφελῆσαι δυνηθῶ, for this was 
an ultimate effect, and not the immediate cause of the apostle’s 
sufferings. We prefer, with Heinrichs and Stolz, the ordinary 
sense of “on your account,” as we may suppose the apostle 
to refer especially to the Gentile portion of the church. His 
preaching to the Gentiles was the real and proximate cause of 
his incarceration. He had, in Jerusalem, declared his mission 
to the Gentiles, but the mob broke upon him in fury. He was 
confined for safety, and having on his trial appealed to Casar, 
he was carried to Rome, and pending the investigation kept a 
prisoner there. Paul does sometimes refer to the good results 
of his sufferings, as in Philip. i. 12, but he here alludes to the 
cause of them. 

Kai ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ϑλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
—‘‘And fill up what is wanting of the afflictions of Christ.” 
Kai is simply connective, not ἀλλά, as Bengel imagines; nor 
καὶ γάρ, as Bahr explains it. It does not render a reason, as 
Calvin supposes, but simply begins an explanatory statement. 
This is peculiar language, and its peculiarity has given rise 
to many forms of exegesis. Chrysostom says:—‘It appears 
a great thing which he utters, but not one of arrogance ” 
—adX οὐκ ἀπονοίας. The noun ὑστέρημα, denotes what is 
yet lacking; 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 1 Thess. 11. 10; Philip. ii. 
30; and is rendered by Theodoret λειπόμενον ; and θλῖψις 
is pressure from evil, violent suffering. The general sense 
of the verb is to fill up; and the question is, in what sense 


88 COLOSSIANS I. 24. 


did the apostle fill up what was wanting of the sufferings of 
Christ ? 

1. Many of the medizval Catholic interpreters understood 
the clause as referring to the atonement, and that its defects 
may be supplied by the sufferings of the saints. This was a 
proof-text for the doctrine of indulgences which Bellarmine, 
Cajetan, Salmeron, Suarez, the Rhemish annotators, and others, 
laid hold of, as if the merits of Paul’s sufferings supplemented 
those of Christ, and were to be dispensed so as to procure the 
remission of penalty. This inference which a-Lapide character- 
izes as non malé, is in direct antagonism to the whole tenor of 
Scripture, which represents the sacrifice of Jesus as perfect in 
obedience and suffering, so perfect as to need neither supple- 
ment nor repetition. 

2. Not a few get rid of the difficulty by giving the genitive 
Χριστοῦ, an unwonted and unwarrantable meaning, and render- 
ing the phrase—“ sufferings on account of Christ.” The idea 
may be in itself a correct one, but it is not the shade of idea 
which the genitive expresses. This exegesis is supported by Ter- 
tullian, Schoettgen, Elsner, Storr, Pierce, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, 
Bohmer, Burton, and Trollope, but it cannot be grammatically 
defended. 

3. Calovius, Carpzovus, and Seb. Schmid, understand the 
phrase as signifying “sufferings meted out to His people by 
Christ ;” a meaning not very different from that adopted by 
Liicke—afjlictiones, quae Paulo apostolo, Christo auctore et 
auspice Christo, perferendae erant. ‘This mode of explanation 
does not fix upon the pointed meaning of the genitive, which, 
when following θλίψις, denotes the suffering person; Ephes. 
i, 13; 2 Cor. 1.4; James 1. 27. 

4. Yet more remote is the view of Photius, adopted by 
Junker and Heinrichs, that the clause denotes such sufferings 
as Christ would have endured, had He remained longer on the 
earth. ‘The words of Photius are—aAWN boa... . ἔπαθεν ἂν 
καὶ ὑπέστη, καθ᾽ ὃν τρόπον καὶ πρὶν κηρύσσων καὶ εὐαγγελι- 
ζόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν." 

5. Some able and accomplished scholars take this view— 


1 Amphilochia, 145. 


COLOSSIANS I. 24. 89 


that the sufferings of Paul are styled by him the afilictions of 
Christ, because they were similar in nature. Such is the view 
of Theodoret, Meyer, Schleiermacher, Huther, and Winer. 
Fergusson says—* the great wave of affliction did first beat on 
Him, and being thereby broken, some small sparks of it only 
do light upon us.” The idea is a striking one, yet it is not 
universally true. The distinctive element in Christ’s suffer- 
ings had and could have no parallel in those of the apostle— 
to wit, vicarious agony: Divine infliction and desertion—en- 
-durance of penalty to free others from bearing it. There 
were general points of similarity, indeed, between the suffer- 
ings of Christ and those of the apostle, so that he might, 
though at an awful distance, compare his afflictions to those 
of his Divine Master. Both suffered at the hand of man, 
and both suffered in innocence. Rom. viii. 17; 1 Peter 
iv. 15. But though such a thought may occur in other 
parts of Scripture, it does not occur in connection with such 
phraseology as is found in the clause before us. An apostle 
may say that he endures afflictions like those of Christ; but 
here Paul says that he supplements the afflictions of Christ. 
There is an idea in the phrase above and beyond that of mere 
similarity. Similarity is not of itself supplement, nor does it 
of necessity imply it. 

And thus, in the last place, we are brought to the common 
interpretation—that these sufferimgs are named the afflictions 
of Christ because He really endured them; they were His, for 
He really felt them. The genitive is naturally that of posses- 
sion. Such is the view of Chrysostom and Theophylact, 
Augustine and Anselm, of Calvin and Beza, Luther and 
Melancthon, Zanchius and Grotius, Vitringa' and Michaelis, 
of Bihr and Steiger, of the Catholics Estius and a-Lapide, 
Davenant, Whitby, Conybeare, Doddridge, De Wette and Ols- 
hausen. Thus, Augustine, on Ps. lxi. exclaims of Christ— 
qui passus est in capite nostro et patitur in membris suis, id est 
nobis wpsis. And Leo, quoted by Béhmer, says — passio 
Christi perducitur ad finem mundi, in omnibus qui pro justitia 
adversa tolerant, ipse compatitur. Christ’s personal sufferings, 


Observat. Sacrae, p. 144. 


90 COLOSSIANS I. 24. 


which are past, and his sympathetic sufferings, which are still 
endured, have been distinguished thus in the old Lutheran 
theology of Gerhard; that the former are suffered ὑποστα- 
τικῶς, the latter σχετικῶς. The Rabbins, in their special 
dialect, attached a similar meaning to the phrase mun ‘an'— 
sufferings of Messiah—distributing them through various gener- 
ations. The church is in the next clause called the body of 
Christ: and the Head suffers in all his members. The 
apostle’s sufferings were those of Christ, for Christ is identi- 
fied with all His people. The scene of the apostle’s conver- 
sion impressed this truth upon his mind too deeply ever to 
be forgotten by him: the startling challenge yet rang in his 
ear—‘ Saul, Saul, why persecutest thoume?” The Redeemer 
was one with the poor flock at Damascus, so soon, in Saul’s 
imagination, to be “scattered and peeled;” for the errand of 
blood was directed against Him as really as against them. 
On the other hand, but in accordance with this truth, apostates 
who resile from their profession, and virtually proclaim that 
they have discovered faith in Christ to be a dream and a 
delusion, are said to “crucify to themselves the Son of God 
afresh, and put Him to an open shame.” Again, in 2 Cor. i. 
5, the apostle says— The sufferings of Christ abound in us,” 
that is, suffermgs endured by Christ in us; and therefore, 
such being the sympathetic affinity between us, our consola- 
tion also aboundeth by Christ.” Again, in Heb. xii. 13, 
Christians are exhorted to “go forth unto Him without the 
“camp, bearing His reproach;” not reproach on His account, 
but the reproach which is His, and which He still bears in us, 
through our living connection with Him. 2 Cor. 11.10. Nay, 
more, we are informed in Heb. xi. 26, that Moses esteemed 
“the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in 
Egypt.” Now, according to the Old Testament, the God of the 
theocracy, the Jehovah of the burning bush, the Angel of the 
covenant, is none other than He who became incarnate; so 
that, while Moses, as His representative, incurred special and 
ungrateful obloquy, that obloquy is termed the reproach of 
Christ, of Him who sent him, and who was personated by 


! Buxtorf, Lew. Tal. p. 700. 2 Alford, in loc. 


COLOSSIANS I. 24. 91 


him. And there is ample foundation laid for the language 
before us in our Lord’s pathetic and solemn discourse, recorded 
in Matthew, in which He declares His oneness with His 
people, that He lives in them, endures in them the pangs of 
hunger and thirst, and in them is fed and refreshed, is shut up 
when they are imprisoned, and welcomes the step of benevo- 
lence—is conscious, with them, when they are in a foreign 
land, of the desolation and solitude of a stranger, and is thank- 
ful for the shelter and fellowship of hospitality—feels the 
shame of their nakedness when they are bereft of clothing, 
and accepts with joy the proffered gift of a compassionate 
friend—suffers in them in their sickness, and enjoys a kind 
look and deed. 

The personal sufferings of Jesus are over, but His sufferings 
in His ‘people still continue. They are still defective; for 
much remains to be endured in this world. The apostle, in 
suffering for the sake of the church, felt that he was fillmg up 
the measure of those afflictions. 

The double compound verb ἀνταναπληρῶ, denotes to fill 
‘‘up in relation to.” Some, like Olshausen' and Elsner, lay no 
peculiar stress on the preposition ; but we cannot suppose it to 
be used without some special purpose. The verb ἀναπληρῶ 
has a simple sense, but dvravarAnow has a relative one. 
What the relation is, has been disputed. Winer explains the 
first compound—gqui ὑστέρημα a se relictum, ipse explet; and 
the second—qui alterius ὑστέρημα de suo explet. Robinson 
and Schrader give ἀντί a reference to the Colossians—who 
“in your room fill up;” while Fritzsche, in a note under 
Romans xv. 19, suggests the notion of accumulation—in malis 
perferendis aemulans. Some give the first preposition the 
sense of vicissim—“ in turn,” as is done by E. Schmid, Beza, 
Macknight, and Le Clerk,’ who render—dlle ego qui olim 
ecclesiam Christi vexaveram, nune vicissim in ejus utilitatem 
pergo multa mala perpeti. Others, as CEcumenius, give it the 
sense of equivalent repayment for the sufferings which Jesus 
endured for us; or, as Gerhard has it, quoted in Bihr—“ as 
Christ suffered for my redemption, it is but fitting that 1 


1 Fischer, Animadver. ad Wellert Gram. p. 369. 
2 Ars Crit. p. 134, London, 1698. 


92 COLOSSIANS I. 24. 


should, in my turn, vicissim, suffer for the advancement of his 
glory. This view is also held by Bihr, Béhmer, and Titt- 
mann.' We cannot adopt this view, for we do not see it fully 
sustained by the passages adduced in support of it. The 
passages from Dio Cassius, Apollonius Alexandrinus, and 
Demosthenes, do not bear it out; for in them the ἀντί 
of the verb may bear an objective sense—may denote the 
correspondence between the supplement and the defect. So 
Conybeare, in the passage before us—‘“ the ἀντί is introduced 
into ἀνταναπληρῶ, by the antithesis between the notions of 
πληροῦσθαι and ὑστερείσθαι." Meyer's view is similar, and 
it is, we believe, the correct one. The verb denotes to fill 
up with something which meets the exigence, or is equivalent 
to the want. The apostle filled up the sufferings of Christ 
not with some foreign agony that had no relation to the 
defect ; but the process of supplement consisted of sufferings 
which met the deficiency, in quality and amount. It was not 
a piece of new cloth on an old garment, or new wine in old 
bottles—an antagonism which would have happened had Paul 
suffered “as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or 
as a busybody in other men’s matters ;” but the apostle filled 
up what was yet wanting in the Saviour’s sympathetic sorrows, 
for he adds, they were endured— 

Ἔν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος avrov—“ In my flesh 
for his body’s sake.” Storr, Biihr, Bohmer, Steiger, and 
Huther, connect the first clause with τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ X.— 
sufferings which are in my flesh. But more naturally, with 
Meyer and De Wette, we join the words to the verb, and 
believe them to represent the mode or circumstances in which 
the apostle filled up what was left of the afflictions of Christ. 
It was in his present fleshly state, and as a suffering man. 
2 Cor. iv. 11; Gal. iv. 14. The next clause points out the 
cause of suffermg—“ for his body’s sake;” and this fact gave 
his sufferings their mysterious and supplemental value. Suffer- 
ing for His body, implies the fellow-suffering of the Head. 
Steiger and Liicke’s connection—* suffermgs of Christ for 
His body’s sake”—is wholly against the spirit of the inter- 


' De Synon. p. 230. 


COLOSSIANS I. 25. 93 


pretation. [Tov σώματος αὐτοῦ 6 ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία. Ephes. 
i, 23.] 

(Ver. 25.) Ἧς ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ dvaxovoe—* Of which church 
I was made a minister.” [Διάκονος, Eph. iii. 7.] In the 
passage in the epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle speaks of 
his diaconate in reference to the gospel; but here in connec- 
tion with the church. And truly the church never had such 
a servant as Paul—of such industry and heroism—such 
enthusiasm and perseverance—such sufferings and travels— 
such opposition and success. He had no leisure even when 
in chains. The artistic beauties of Athens served but to give 
point to his orations; and the Pretorium at Rome furnished 
him with occasion to describe the armour and weapons of the 
sacramental host of God’s elect. His service stands out in 
superlative eminence, whether you measure it by the miles 
he journeyed, by the sermons he preached, by the stripes 
and stonings he endured, by the privations he encountered,— 
“in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness,” and by the ship- 
wrecks he suffered, or by the souls he converted, the churches 
he planted or watered, the epistles he wrote, and the death 
which crowned a life of such earnestness and triumph. 

Kara τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς --- 
“ According to the dispensation of God committed to me for 
you.” [Οἰκονομία, &c., Eph. i. 10; iii. 2.1 In the Divine 
arrangement of the spiritual house, the apostle held a function 
which had special reference to the members of the Gentile 
churches. Paul regarded this as his distinctive office, and 
how he gloried in it! It had a breadth which suited his 
mighty mind, and it necessitated the preaching of an uncon- 
ditioned gospel, which specially delighted his ample heart. 
He would not be confined within the narrow circuit of 
Judaism; the field on which his soul set itself was the world. 

Πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ --- “Το fulfil the word of 
God.” Rom. xv. 19. The meaning is not altered, whether 
you connect these words with the first or second clause of the 
verse, either—‘ of which I was made a servant, to fulfil the 
word of God,” or— according to the dispensation given in 
charge to me, to fulfil the word of God.” The last is the 


more natural, and is in accordance with the usual style of the 


94 COLOSSIANS I. 25. 


apostle. In either case πληρῶσαι is the infinitive of design. 
The verb has various meanings in the New Testament, and 
has therefore been variously understood here. 

Vitringa,) as was natural to such a Hebraist, seeks the 
meaning of the term from Jewish usage, and compares 
πληρόω to "3, which signified to teach. Flatt and Bihr 
follow him in their exegesis; but such a method has no 
warrant, and we are not forced to it by the impossibility of 
discovering another. Cornelius a-Lapide ekes out a meaning 
in this way—to fulfil what Christ began; Steiger, following 
Tholuck,’ adopts the subjective idea—to realize and experi- 
ence its fulness. One class of interpreters, represented by 
Calixtus and Heinrichs, apply it to the fulfilment of the Divine 
promises and prophecies of the admission of Gentiles into the 
church; and another class, headed by Theodoret, regard the 
clause as pointing out the diffusion of the gospel—the filling 
of all places with its preaching. Calvin takes the special idea 
of fulfilling or giving effect to the gospel—ut eficax sit Dei 
sermo, virtually the interpretation of some of the Greek 
Fathers; while Luther renders reichlich predigen, to preach 
fully—a notion adopted by Olshausen, that is, to declare the 
gospel in all its fulness and extent. Fritzsche has a con- 
jecture of his own—that the apostle uses this term as if his 
instructions were a supplementary continuation of those of 
their teacher Epaphras;’ and De Wette, by a metonymy, 
regards the gospel as a service or decree which Paul wrought 
out, a notion also held by some of the Lexicographers. In 
assigning a meaning to the verb, much depends on the signifi- 
cation given tothe noun. Now, we regard the following verse 
as explanatory—the λόγος being the mystery hid from ages 
and generations—not the gospel in itself, but that gospel in 
its adaptation to the Gentiles, and its reception by them. The 
apostle says of himself that he did not preach, but that he 
fulfilled the gospel. He carried out its design—held it up as 
the balm of the world—proclaimed it without distinction of 
blood or race. He did not narrow its purpose, or confine it 
to a limited sphere of influence; but, as the apostle of the 


1 Observat. i. p. 207. 2 Berg-pred. p. 135. 
3 Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. 257. 


COLOSSIANS I. 26. 95 


Gentiles, he opened for it a sweep and circuit adapted to its 
magnificence of aim, and its universality of fitness and suffi- 
ciency. He carried it beyond the frontiers of Judea, lifted 
it above the walls of the synagogue, and held it up to the 
nations. The gospel, since the apostle’s time, has received 
no fuller expansion, nor have any wider susceptibilities been 
detected or developed in it. As an instrument of human 
regeneration, he brought it to perfection. Whether you 
regard the purpose of its author, its own genius or adequacy, 
its unlimited offers, indiscriminate invitations, and tested 
efficacy; the apostle, in preaching it everywhere, and to all 
classes without reserve, laboured “ to fulfil the word of God.” 
Luke vii. 1; ix. 31; Acts xiii. 25; xiv. 26. 

(Ver. 26.) Τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων 
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ. 
This verse, as we have said, defines what is meant by the 
“word” which Paul fulfilled. The meaning of “the mystery 
hid from ages and from generations,” has been explained under 
Eph. 111. 8, 6. [μυστήριον, Eph. 1. 9, αἰών, γενεά, Eph. ii. 9, 
21.1] Αἰών is age or lifetime, and γενεά is the space of one 
generation. In all past time, this mystery was concealed. 
The apostle does not say, as has been remarked—zpo τῶν 
αἰώνων, as if the mystery had been hidden from eternity ; 
but only that it was wrapt in obscurity during the entire past 
historical epoch. It is a strange conceit of Bengel—A cones 
referuntur ad angelos, generationes ad homines. The mystery 
is not the gospel generally, as Calvin and Davenant errone- 
ously suppose; but the preaching of it to the Gentiles, and 
their incorporation into the church, or, as the apostle here 
describes it—‘‘Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Nay, so little 
was it understood, that it required a special revelation to 
make it known to the reluctant mind of the apostle Peter. 

In the next clause the syntax is changed, and, therefore, as 
might naturally be expected, we find various readings devised 
to amend the grammar, such as φανερωθέν in D and E, and ὃ 
νῦν ἐφανερώθη in other Codices. The participial construc- 
tion is suddenly departed from, and the verb is employed. 
The anacoluthon gives a sharpness to the contrast. Winer, 
§ 64; Bernhardy, p. 473. [Eph. i. 20.] The adverb νυνί, 


96 COLOSSIANS I. 27. 


supported by A, D, E, J, K, is the strengthened form of viv. 
Buttmann, ὃ 80, and δέ points out the contrast. The verb 
employed to denote the disclosure of ἃ mystery 15 ἀποκαλύπτω 
in Eph. ii. 5; but this verb occurs in a similar connection, 
Rom. xvi. 26; Titus 1. 3; Mark iv. 22. The word denotes 
manifestation by Divine power, as the inspired history so 
plainly relates. But what is meant by τοῖς ἁγίοις ἢ Because 
the apostle, in the parallel passage in the epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, adds ἀποστόλοις καὶ προφήταις, many think that the 
same addition is to be understood here. Such is the view of 
Theodoret, Estius, Bihr, Bohmer, Steiger, Olshausen, and 
others. F, 6, add, without warrant, ἀποστόλοις to the text. 
There is no reason to depart from the meaning which the 
epithet bears in the first verse of the epistle; and so Chrysos- 
tom, Calvin, Meyer, and De Wette, rightly take it. 

(Ver. 27.) Οἷς ἠθέλησεν 6 Θεὸς γνωρίσαι, τίς ὃ πλοῦτος τῆς 
δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν----“ ΤΟ whom,” or, 
as being persons, “to whom God wished to make known 
what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the 
Gentiles.” Some suppose that γνωρίσαι has a broader and 
more definite meaning than ἐφανερώθη, though without good 
foundation. [γνωρίσαι, Eph. i. 9.] It is wrong on the part of 
many expositors to press a theological meaning upon the verb 
ἠθέλησεν, as if it contaimed a special reference to free grace. 
Tt merely intimates that the Divine intention was not neces- 
sitated, and that it was God’s pleasure to instruct his people 
in the full bearings and adaptation of the gospel. The saints 
did not discover the mystery : the development of Christianity 
sprang neither from their philanthropy nor their ingenuity, 
but it was God who unfolded the mystery in all wisdom and 
prudence. The apostle now illustrates the character of the 
disclosure—rf τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης, (for such seems to be | 
the preferable reading)—“ what is the wealth of the glory” 
of this mystery. ‘There is no ground for resolving the phrase 
into a Hebraism, and rendering it with Chrysostom, πολλὴ 
δόξα; nor with Erasmus, gloriosa opulentia; or with Beza 
and Davenant, gloriosae divitiae. |Ephes.i.6.] Both terms, 
πλοῦτος and δόξα, are favourites of the apostle, and are 
employed to represent what is bright, substantial, and per- 


COLOSSIANS I. 27. 97 


manent. That mystery is enveloped in glory, and that glory 
has at once a solid basis and an unfading lustre. It is no halo 
which glimmers and disappears—no gilding which is easily 
effaced ; but it is rich, having the weight, value, and brilliancy 
of gold. There is no authority for rendering, with Vatablus 
and Heinrichs, the interrogative by guantus. And that such 
wealth of glory may be appreciated, the apostle adds, in 
explanation— 

"Oe ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς dd&nc—“ Which is 
Christ in you, the hope of glory.” There are various readings 
—the neuter 6 being found in A, B, F, G, the Vulgate, 
and Latin Fathers — a reading suggested by the gender of 
the preceding noun. ‘The masculine is preferable — the 
gender being caused by that of the following substantive 
Χριστός. Winer, ὃ 24; Kiihner, ὃ 786, ὃ; Mark xv. 16; 
Gal. i. 16. The meaning depends very much on precision 
of view as to the antecedent. Itis not μυστήριον, as Chry- 
sostom, a-Lapide, Kistmacher, Junker, and others, suppose 
—a supposition which yields but a bald interpretation; for it 
is not the mystery in itself, but the wealth of the glory of 
the mystery which God had disclosed to the saints. [Ὁ is not 
the fact that Christ was among the Gentiles, but the character 
and relations of that fact that the apostle dwells on. Nor is 
the antecedent merely πλοῦτος, as many maintain, among 
whom are Theodoret and Cicumenius, Meyer and Béhmer ; 
nor simply δόξα, as Schmid holds; for the reference is 
not to the riches of the glory by themselves, but to those 
riches possessed and enjoyed by the Gentile converts. The 
one idea is at the same time involved in the other; the glory 
is not an abstraction, for it resides in the mystery, and the 
mystery cannot appear in nakedness, for it always exhibits 
this pure and imperishable lustre. The antecedent is rather 
the complex idea of the entire clause—not Christ in Himself, 
but in His novel and gracious relation to the Gentile world, 
as a developed and illustrious mystery. The term Christ is 
not to be explained away, as if it merely meant the doctrine 
of Christ, as is proved by the subsequent clause—“ whom we 
preach.” ‘The words ἐν ὑμῖν, are rendered by many “among 


you,” that is, in the midst of you, as in the preceding clause 
πὶ 


98 COLOSSIANS I. 97. 


and in the margin of our English Bibles. But the meaning 
“in you,” is virtually implied; for Christ, as the hope of glory, 
was not contemplated merely, but possessed. He was not 
merely before them to be beheld, but in them to be felt. 
Pierce and Macknight render, loosely and incorrectly—Christ 
to you the hope of glory. This frequent allusion to the 
Redeemer by name—to His power and work, as the Divine 
source of blessing, seems to have had a reference to the views 
of some among the Colossians, who would have had a church 
without a Christ, and salvation without a Saviour. 

The clause ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δδξης, is in apposition with Χριστός. 
It is out of all rule, on the part of Erasmus, Menochius, and 
others, apparently following Theophylact, to render τῆς δόξης 
by the adjective ἔνδοξος. Nor is this glory simply that of 
God, nor is it the moral worth and dignity of Christians, nor 
yet the glory obtained in disclosing the mystery. The 
“olory” is the future blessedness of believers, as in Rom. ii. 
4,203 vuu.18; 1 Corn: %2.2-Cor. iv. 17; 1 Thess 
Heb. 1.10; Rom. v. 2. The noun ἐλπίς, is not hope as an 
emotion, but the foundation of it, as in 1 Tim. i. 1, and it is 
followed by the genitive of the thing hoped for, or the object 
of hope. The clause is well explained by Theophylact—dvdre 
δὶ αὐτοῦ ἐλπίζομεν τῆς δόξης τυχεῖν αἰωνίου. The life of 
glory rests on Christ as its author and basis—such is the 
blessed statement of the apostle. Let us pause for a moment 
over this glory, and its connection with Christ, and then we 
shall be able to know with the saints—“ what are the riches 
of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles.” 

The glory of Christians is yet to come, but it is certain. 
What they so earnestly pray for, and so heartily long and 
labour for, shall be revealed over and beyond their anticipa- 
tions. Deliverance from all evil is followed by introduction 
ito all good. What is partially and progressively enjoyed 
in time, is fully and for ever possessed in heaven. The spirit 
in its present feebleness would bow and faint beneath the 
pressure of it, nay, it might die in delirious agony; but then, 
it shall have power and stateliness not only to bear, but to 
enjoy the “far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” 
Now, no man can see Him and live—our frail humanity 


COLOSSIANS I. 27. 99 


would be consumed by the terrible vision; but the saint is 
prepared to gaze with unmingled rapture on His majesty, and 
to live, walk, and be happy in its lustre. The mind shall be 
filled with light from the face of God, and the heart shall 
pulsate with love in eternal and undivided empire. The 
image of God, in all its loveliness and brilliance, shall be 
restored to every heart, and that heart shall enjoy uninter- 
rupted fellowship with Him who sits upon the throne. 
Nothing can happen to mar or modify this communion; for 
though an angel were. to pass between him and the throne, 
he could cast no shadow upon the rapt and adoring saint. 
Every man shall be as perfect as: Christ—in soul, body, and 
spirit, and beyond the possibility of forfeit or relapse. The 
burden of sin is removed, and to the sense of oppression there 
shall succeed the consciousness of spiritual buoyancy and eleva- 
tion ; the taint of depravity is wiped away, and the joy of salva- 
tion shall mingle its aromatic fragrance with the “new wine” 
in the kingdom of our Father. The body, too, shall be raised 
an ethereal vehicle, no longer the prey of disease, languor, 
and death, but clothed in immortal youth and vigour, and so 
assimilated to the blessed spirit within it, as neither to cramp 
its movements nor confine its energies. No pain there—no 
throbbing brow there —no tear on the cheek there — no 
sepulchre there—no symbol of mourning there—no spectacle 
like the apparition of Rachel weeping for her children—or 
like the widow of Nain following the bier of a lost and loved 
one. ‘ Death is swallowed up of life’—the graves have been 
opened—they that dwell in the dust have awakened to endless 
minstrelsy. Nor do they dwell in a paradise restored 
amidst the lovely bowers, shady groves, and exuberant fruits 
of asecond Eden. Such glory is too bright for earth, and is 
therefore to be enjoyed in a scene which shall be in harmony 
with it. See under verse 12. 

Now, Christ is the hope of this glory. Glory had been 
forfeited, but Jesus interposed for its restoration. When the 
Saviour is received by faith, the hope of glory springs up in 
the bosom—a hope as strange aforetime to it as “the pine and 
the box tree” in the desert. Christians are by nature sinners 
doomed to die, yet, through Christ, they exult in the promise 


100 COLOSSIANS 1. 27. 


of life. Though, in their physical frame, they are of the earth 
earthy, their treasure is in heaven. They can look on the 
Divine Judge, who must, but for Christ, have condemned 
them, and call him, in Jesus, their Father-God; and they can 
gaze on the home of angels, so far above them, and say of it, 
in confidence—that, too, is our home. ‘The basis of this life 
is Jesus. If it be asked, why have his sins not borne down 
the evil-doer, and crushed him beneath the intolerable load ? 
why has the lightning slumbered beneath the throne, and not 
swiftly descended on his head? why are the angry passions 
within him hushed, and his gloomy thoughts dissipated? 
whence such a change in relation and character ?—the pro- 
blem is solved by the statement—“ Christ within you.” ‘This 
hope rests on his objective work—for “it was Christ that 
died.” Who shall reverse the sentence of our justification, 
or pronounce it inconsistent with sovereign equity? And 
who shall condemn us? Shall sin raise its head ?—He has 
made an end of it. Shall Satan accuse ?—he has been cast 
out. Shall conscience alarm ?—it has been purged from dead 
works. Or, shall death frown horribly on us?—even it has 
been abolished. ‘The basis of this hope of glory is also the 
subjective work of Christ—by His Spirit within the saint. Not 
only has he the title to heaven, but he gets maturity for it. 
The process of sanctification begets at once the idea and the 
hope of perfection. If one sees the block of marble assuming 
gradually, under the chisel, the semblance of humanity, he 
infers at once what form of sculpture the artist intends. So 
if there be felt within us the transforming influence of the 
Holy Ghost, bringing out the Divine image with more and 
more fulness and distinctness, can we doubt the ultimate 
result? Rom. xv. 13. Such consciousness inspires vivid 
expectation. In short, in whatever aspect the saints view their 
hope, they see it in connection with Christ. If they look 
behind them, the earliest dawning of it sprang from faith in 
His cross; if they look around them, it is sustained by the 
promises of Him who sealed these pledges in His blood; if 
they look forward and upward, it is strengthened by the 
nearing proximity of realization in Him who is “in the midst 
of the throne.” What a blessed change to the Gentile world! 


COLOSSIANS I. 28. 101 


They had been described as once “ without Christ,” but now 
Christ. was in them; once they had no hope, but now, they 
had in them Him who was the hope of glory. No wonder 
that the apostle rejoiced in suffering for the Gentile churches, 
and thanked God for that arrangement which enabled him to 
carry out the gospel to its widest susceptibility of application, 
and thus develop a doctrine which had been concealed for 
ages. Is his language too gorgeous, when surveying the 
wondrous process and the stupendous results, he speaks of 
the “riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles 
—‘“ Christ in you, the hope of glory?” And that glory is not 
to be under eclipse—that Saviour is not to be selfishly con- 
cealed. No; the apostle adds, as characteristic of his grand 
commission and daily labour— 

(Ver. 28.) ον ἡμεῖς καταγγέλλομεν---“ Whom we preach.” 
Acts xvi. 3; Philip. 1. 17. Chrysostom and Theophylact lay 
undue stress on the κατά, as if the idea of down—deorsum, were 
implied in the verb, and the inference were, that they delivered 
a message which had descended from heaven. ‘This Christ, so 
glorious in person and perfect in work—the incarnate God— 
the bleeding peacemaker—the imperial governor of the uni- 
verse—it is He, none else, and none besides Him, whom we 
preach. Not simply His doctrine, but Himself; and He was 
preached, not by Paul alone, but by all his colleagues. This 
Christ is the one and undivided object of proclamation; and 
if He be the hope of glory, no wonder that they rejoice to pro- 
claim Him wide and far, and on every possible occasion. The 
apostolic preaching was precise and definite. It contained no 
reveries about the heavenly hierarchy. It was overlaid by no 
tasteless and tawdry declamation about invisible and worthless 
mysteries. It dealt not in ascetic distinctions of meats and 
drinks. There was about it none of those abstruse transcen- 
dentalisms in which the Colossian heresiarchs seem to have 
indulged. It did not gratify the morbid and curious, by pry- 
ing into celestial arcana. It did not nourish a carnal pride 
under the delusion of a “voluntary humility.” Nor did it de- 
throne a Saviour-God, and substitute the worshipping of angels 
for the faith, love, and homage due to Him. ‘The one theme 
was Christ—‘ Him first, Him last, Him midst.” Christ, as the 


102 COLOSSIANS I. 28. 


one deliverer, conferring pardon by His blood, purity by His 
Spirit, and perfection by His pledge and presence, securing 
defence by His power, comfort by His sympathy, and the 
hope of glory by His residence in the believing heart; this 
Christ, as the only source of such multifarious and connected 
gifts, we preach, and we preach with special tenderness and 
anxiety. For he characterizes his preaching thus— 
Νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα 
ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ --- “Reminding every man, and 
teaching every man in all wisdom.” iii. 16. The two parti- 
ciples, as might be. expected, have been variously distin- 
guished. [Νουθεσία, Ephes. vi. 4.7 There is no warrant in 
the context for translating this first term by the Latin corri- 
prentes—as in the Vulgate; as if the apostle meant to say, 
either that men in sin needed to be rebuked, or that false 
teachers were subjected by himself to severe and merited 
castigation. Theophylact, followed by De Wette and Ols- 
hausen, refers the first term to practice—éml τῆς πράξεως, 
and the second to doctrine 


ἐπὶ δογμάτων. According to 
Steiger, the one marks the early communication of Christian 
truth, and the latter characterizes fuller instruction. By 
Huther ‘the heart is supposed to be concerned in νουθε- 
τοῦντες, and the intellect in δίδασκοντες. Meyer affirms that 
the two words correspond to the cardinal injunction of the 
gospel—peravosirs and mioretere—repent and believe. We 
are inclined to be somewhat eclectic among these opinions, 
and to regard the first term as the more general, and the 
second as the more special—the one as describing the means 
employed to arouse the soul and stimulate it to reflection, 
and the other as the definite form of instruction which was 
communicated to the anxious and inquiring spirit.1 The 
apostle warned every man—any one, every one,—urged him 
as a sinner to bethink himself, to consider his danger, as the 
victim of a broken law—and apprehending the certainty of 
safety alone in Christ, to look at the adaptation of the gospel 
and the glory of its evidence, and to submit to its paramount 


1 Thus Clements says,—n νουθέσησις οὖν οἱονεὶ δίαιτα ἔστι νοσούσης ψυχι is, &.— 
‘Counsel is the prescribed diet of a diseased soul, advising it to take what is salu- 
tary, and warning it against what is pernicious.” : 


| 


COLOSSIANS I. 28. 103 


claims. And he taught “ every man”—gave him full instruction 
—left him in no dubiety, but presented him with a correct 
and glowing sketch of redemption by the cross. And this 
was done— 

Ἔν πάσῃ copia—“‘In all wisdom.” Estius and Rosen- 
miiller, Pierce and A. Clarke, following the Latin Fathers, 
blunder when they take these words to denote the object of 
the teaching; for in the New Testament that object is 
governed in the accusative. Mark vi. 30; xu. 14; Luke xx. 
21; John xiv. 26; 1-Tim. iv. 11; Titus i. 11. Réell com- 
bines both this view and the followmg one. Chrysostom 
rightly renders ἐν by pera. See the phrase explained under 
Ephes. 1. 8. It is probably to be joined to the latter or 
principal participle, and points out the mode or spirit of the 
apostle’s teaching. 1 Cor. in. 10. The apostle rejects, indeed, 
one species of wisdom—that which so often assumed the self- 
satisfied name of philosophy; but still he felt the necessity of 
employing the highest skill and prudence in discharging the 
duties of his office. 1 Cor. 1. 4. To preach the gospel so as 
to guide the wandering sinner to Christ—to drive him from 
all refuges of lies, and urge him to embrace a free and full 
salvation—to enlighten, comfort, strengthen, and refresh the 
children of God, is seen to be a task demanding consummate 
wisdom, when we consider the endless varieties of character 
and temperament, the mnumerable sophistries of the human 
heart, and the ever-changimg condition and events of our brief 
existence. Yet while Christ crucified is the theme of every 
address, such uniformity of doctrine does not imply sameness 
of argument or tedious monotony of imagery and illustration. 
There may be, and there will be, in this wisdom, circum- 
stantial variety in the midst of essential oneness—for the truth 
though old is ever new. 

And the apostle dwells on the imdividualizing character of 
the gospel, and repeats the words “every man.” ‘There is in 
this probably a special reference to the partial views of those 
who were disturbmg the Colossian church. The apostle 
felt an undying interest in every man, whatever his character 
or creed—every man, whatever his race or lineage—every 
man, whatever his colour or language—every man, whatever 


104 COLOSSIANS I. 29. 


his class or station; every living man on earth shared in his 
sympathies, had a place in his prayers, and, so far as the 
sphere of his personal teaching extended, might receive the 
impress of his counsels, and the benefit of his instructions. 
The motive of his effort is then described— 

“Iva παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ--- 
“In order that we may present every man perfect in Christ.” 
A glorious aim—tva—the noblest that can stimulate enthu- 
silasm, or sustain perseverance in suffering or toil. The ᾿Ιησοῦ 
of the Textus Receptus is not supported by full authority. 
The phrase “ perfect in Christ,” does not simply mean perfect 
in knowlege, because of this previous teaching, as Chrysostom 
and Calvin supposed; for the effect of such knowledge is 
moral in its nature, and sanctifying im its effect. John xvii. 3. 
Such perfection is “in Christ,” im fellowship with Him, is 
derived from Him, and consists in likeness to Him. The 
verb occurs in verse 22, and in a clause of similar import. 
The time of presentation is described under Ephes. v. 27. 
The object of his preaching was to save every man. He was 
contented with nothing less than this, and nothing else than 
this was his absorbing motive. Not that every man was 
perfected whom he had endeavoured to instruct, but such was 
his avowed object. Theophylact thus writes—ri λέγεις ; πάντα 
ἄνθρωπον; vai, φησι, τοῦτο σπουδάζομεν. εἰ δὲ μὴ γένηται, 
ὀυδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Clement of Alexandria takes πάντα in the 
sense of dAov—the man entire—soul, body, and spirit. And 
the gaining of that object cost the apostle no small pains and 
labour, for he adds— 

(Ver. 29.) Εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ---΄ For which I also labour.” 
To attain this blessed end, I also toil — ἀγωνιζόμενος --- 
“intensely struggling,” or as Wycliffe renders—J traueile 
in stryuynge. It was no light work, no pastime; it made a 
demand upon every faculty and every moment. 1 Tim. iv. 10. 
Since the apostle had many adversaries to contend with, as is 
evident from numerous allusions in his epistles, Philip. 1. 29, 
30; 1 Tim. vi. 5; 2 Thess. i. 2, many suppose that such 
struggles are either promimently alluded to here, or at least 
are distinctly implied in the use of the participle. But the 
context does not favour such a hypothesis. It would seem 


COLOSSIANS I. 29. 105 


from the following verses, that it is to an agony of spiritual 
earnestness that the apostle refers—to that profound yearning 
which occasioned so many wrestlings in prayer, and drew 
from him so many tears; μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σπουδῆς, as Chry- 
sostom paraphrases it. When we reflect upon the motive— 
the presentation of perfect men to God, and upon the 
instrument—the preaching of the cross, we cease to wonder 
at the apostle’s zeal and toils. For there is no function so 
momentous,—not that which studies the constitution of man, 
in order to ascertain his diseases and remove them; nor that 
which labours for social improvement, and the promotion of 
science and civilization; nor that-which unfolds the resources 
of a nation, and secures it a free and patriotic government— 
far more important than all, is the function of the Christian 
ministry. What in other spheres is enthusiasm, is in it but 
sobriety. Barnes well says—‘“ In such a work it is a privilege 
to exhaust our strength; in the performance of the duties of 
such an office, it is an honour to be permitted to wear out life 
itself.” 

It was, indeed, no sluggish heart that beat in the apostle’s 
bosom. His was no torpid temperament. There was such a 
keenness in all its emotions and anxieties, that its resolve and 
action were simultaneous movements. But though he laboured 
so industriously, and suffered so bravely in the aim of winning 
souls to Christ and glory, still he owned that all was owing 
to Divine power lodged within him— 


The work to be perform’d is ours, 
The strength is all His own; 


Tis He that works to will, 

ΙΒ He that works to do; 

His is the power by which we act, 
His be the glory too. 


Therefore, the apostle thus concludes— 

Kara τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν 
Suvduec—“ According to His working, that worketh in me 
with might.” The preposition κατά expresses the measure of 
Paul’s apostolical labour. He laboured not only under the 
prompting of the Divine energy, but he laboured just so far 
as that imparted energy enabled him. 1 Cor. xv. 10. “By 


100 COLOSSIANS I. 29. 


the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which was 
bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abun- 
dantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which 
was with me.” The pronoun αὐτοῦ refers not to God, as many 
imagine, but to Christ. The participle is not in the passive, 
but the middle voice, as in Gal. v. 6. [Ephes. 11. 20.] Winer, 
§ 39, 6. The phrase ἐν δυνάμει does not, as Vatablus and 
Michaelis suggest, refer to miracles, but has an adverbial 
sense, specifying the mode of operation. Rom. i. 4; 2 Thess. 
i.11. The occurrence of the noun and a correlate verb inten- 
sifies the meaning. Winer, ὃ 32, 6. [Ephes. i. 5, 6.7] It 
was no feeble manifestation of Divine power that showed 
itself in the great apostle of the Gentiles. Its ample energies 
clothed him with a species of moral omnipotence. Philip. 
iv. 13. The sublime motive to present every man perfect in 
Christ, through the preaching of Christ, could only be realized 
by the conferment of Divine qualification and assistance. 
Mere human influence cannot reach it, though the faculties 
be kept in full tension, and the mind be disciplined into 
symmetrical operation. Learning, industry, and genius, are of 
little avail, without piety and spiritual support. ‘ Our suff- 
ciency is of God.” 2 Cor. ii. 5, 6. 


CHAPTER II. 


Tue apostle had just spoken of his sufferings for the church, 
and his conflicts for the realization of the one grand aim of 
1186. Christian ministry. That aim filled his spirit and nerved 
is energies. It made him what he was—a preacher, and at 
length a martyr. The value of souls and the glory of Christ 
wrapt themselves up in one burning thought, and created and 
sustamed one dominant and living impulse within him. It 
was his heart’s desire that the gospel should be preserved in 
its purity and simplicity, free from all admixtures of Judaism 
and false philosophy. He knew that the introduction of error 
imperilled the salvation of sinners, hindered the diffusion of 
the word, and robbed the cross of its special adaptations to a 
lost world. And his affection was not wholly set upon 
churches where he had preached in person. He had no little 
Jealousies and no favouritism, but all the believing communi- 
ties, whatever their age, place, or origin, found in him imme- 
diate sympathy and co-operation. The churches which he 
had not visited in person might scarcely be inclined to believe 
this fully, and might naturally imagine that their neighbours 
which had been honoured by his presence had a deeper hold 
on his affection. But the apostle seeks to dispel this illusion, 
and says in earnest exhortitude!— 

(Ver. 1.) Θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι, ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω περὶ 
ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑωράκασι τὸ πρόσωπόν 
μου ἐν capxi— For I wish that you knew what a great con- 
flict I have about you and them in Laodicea, and as many as 
have not seen my face in the flesh.” It is disputed whether 


1 “From the construction of this Exordium I venture to assert, that there is no rule 
laid down by Aristotle, Cicero, and other masters of eloquence, concerning the framing 
of introductions, which is not adhered to in this brief opening. For three things are 
required by them in a legitimate Exordium: That it be adapted to render the 
hearer aétentive, and docile, and to conciliate his affection.” —Davenant, in loc. 


108 COLOSSIANS II. 1. 


περί or ὑπέρ be the better reading—A, B, C, D!", declare for 
the latter; while the former is supported by D’, E, F, G, J, K, 
and the Greek Fathers, Lachmann and ‘Tischendorf, are 
divided. Perhaps περί is the right reading, and ὑπέρ was 
suggested from iv. 12; andi. 24. The reading éépaxayv—the 
Alexandrian form—is also preferable to that of the Textus 
Receptus—éwpaxaot. Winer, ὃ 13, 2. 

The division of chapters is here unhappy, for this verse is 
but a supplementary explanation of the preceding one. “I 
am in an agony” he had said, and now he adds, “I would ye 
knew what an agony I am in about you.” The noun ἀγών 
means deep and earnest solicitude,! accompanied with toil and 
peril. Philip. i. 380; 1 Thess. ας 2; 1 Tim. vi. 12. It points 
out that imtense and painful anxiety, which preyed upon 
him, now in occasional terror, and now in reviving hopes— 
that ceaseless conflict which filled his waking hours with 
effort, and relieved with prayer the watches of the night. His 
soul was in a perpetual distress for them: every suspicion 
about them left a pang behind it—the bare possibility of their 
relapse or apostacy brought with it unutterable dismay and 
sorrow. Therefore, he says, ἡλίκον dywva— How great a 
strugele.” Hesychius gives, as synonyms for the adjective, 
ὁποῖον, ποταπόν. James 11. 5. It was no easy or supine 
struggle. He knew what was at stake. They were in dan- 
ger, and he could not be in the midst of them. The seducer 
might have been pictured out to him, but he was not privileged 
to confront him. How the Colossians stood he knew not. 
He was aware of the hazard they were in generally—but the 
shiftings of the crisis and its individual results could only be 
faintly apprehended. Like the caged bird beating its bared and 
bleeding breast against the wires of its prison, as it hears the 
repeated cry of its unseen young ones, the apostle turned ever 
and anon toward those churches, painted to himself their danger 
and their need of help, and strained his eager spirit to the ut- 
most as he sighed over the possible desolation which might come 
upon them. Nor did he idly chafe in his confinement,—but 
he wrote this letter, and he wished them to know the depth of 


1 Πολλὴ φρόντις —as Theodoret explains it. 


COLOSSIANS II. 2. 109 


the love which he cherished toward them. “I would that ye 
knew.” Similar construction is found in 1 Cor. xi. 3; Philip. 
i. 12; Rom. xi. 25. If they knew it, they would listen all the 
more readily to his suggestions and counsels. Laodicea is 
also mentioned, from its proximity to Colosse, and perhaps 
because it was exposed to similar seductions. A few Codices, 
with the Philoxenian Syriac, add καὶ τῶν ἐν ‘TepardAx, a gloss 
evidently taken from iv. 13. The apostle says, besides, “and 
as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.” This mode of 
expression is a popular one, and is not therefore to be pressed 
as if “in the flesh” was opposed to “in the Spirit,” or as if, 
as Olshausen suggests, it put “the bodily countenance in con- 
trast to the spiritual physiognomy.” The reference in ὅσοι 
has been keenly disputed—whether it alludes to a class dif 
ferent from the Christians in Colosse and Laodicea; or whether 
it characterizes them also as persons unknown to the apostle, 
and unvisited by him. This question has been fully treated in 
the Introduction, to which the reader is referred. The point 
of the apostle’s agony is thus described— 

(Ver. 2.) Ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν ai καρδίαι αὐτῶν---“ That their 
hearts might be comforted.” In the violent effort described 
in ἀγών, there is implied a definite design expressed by ἵνα. 
The pronoun αὐτῶν; in the third person, comprehends all the 
classes of persons mentioned in the preceding verse. We 
agree with Meyer that there is no reason to depart from the 
ordinary sense of the verb, which plainly means to comfort, in 
1 Thess. iti. 2; 2 Thess. 1. 17; Ephes. vi. 22; Matt. i. 18; 
v. 4; 2 Cor. 1. 4. The addition of καρδία renders such a 
meaning more certain. It appears to us that there is in this 
earnest wish an allusion to that discomfort which the intro- 
duction of error creates, as indeed is more plainly shown by 
the concluding phraseology of the verse. The conflict of error 
with truth could not but lead to distraction and mental tur- 
moil; and in proportion to their misconception of the gospel, 
or their confusion of idea with regard to its spirit, contents, 
and aim, would be their loss of that peace and solace, which 
the new religion had imparted to them. 

Συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ayamy— United together in love.” 
[ Ephes. Iv. 16.] The Elzevir Text reads συμ[ϑιασθέντων on 


110 COLOSSIANS II. 2. 


very slight authority. The reading is an evident emendation’ 
with reference to the preceding αὐτῶν. The masculine form 
and nominative case of the participle presents no real diffi- 
culty. [Ephes. iv. 2.] The Vulgate translation—instructi— 
is based upon the usage of the Septuagint, in which this verb 
represents several Hebrew verbs, the principal of which are 
portions of either yp or my, and signifying to instruct.’ Isaiah 
xl. 13; Exodus xviii. 16; Jer. x. 11, &c. It is used with a 
similar secondary sense in Acts xvi. 10; ix. 22, where it 
means to gather up the lessons presented, and knit them 
together in the form of inference or demonstration. Hesy- 
chius defines συμβι[άζει by εἰς φιλίαν dye; and the Scholiast, 
quoted by Wetstein, has it, συμβιβασθέντες, οἷον ἑνωθέντες ; 
this last term being that also employed in explanation by 
Theophylact.” But the natural sense here is, ““bemg com- 
pacted together,” love being the element of union; ἐν point- 
ing not simply to its bond, as if it were διά. In the peculiar 
condition of the Colossian church, this virtual prayer was very 
necessary. The entrance of error naturally begets suspicion 
and alienation. One wonders if his neighbour be infected, 
and how far; and that neighbour reciprocates similar curiosity 
and doubts. Expressions are too carefully weighed, and a 
man is made “an offender for a word.” A sinister construction 
is apt to be put upon the slightest actions; nay, caution defeats 
its very purpose, and fails to secure good understanding. But 
the apostle was anxious that these churches should feel no 
such disaster, should be shivered into repellent fragments by 
none of those evil influences, but that they should remain in 
mutual and affectionate oneness—bound together in love— 
proof alike against the invasion of heresy, and the secret 
upspringing of internal mistrusts and dislikes. 

Kat εἰς πάντα πλοῦτον τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως--- 
«Απᾷ unto the whole wealth of the full assurance of under- 
standing.” But with which of the preceding clauses is this 
one to be joined? It seems preferable to connect it with the 


1 So also Ambrosiaster and Hilary, as well as Bretschneider, who, in his Leaxicon, 
sub voce, renders this clause bene edocti ad amorem mutuum. 

2 Herodotus, i. 74, and Thucydides, ii. 29, where it is said of Nymphodorus, that 
he reconciled Perdiccas to the Athenians—£Zuy:fiBace. 


COLOSSIANS II. 2. TEE 


last—‘‘ knit together”—év ... καὶ εἰς --- “in love and in 
order to the wealth.” The two prepositions are closely united 
by xkai—éy pointing out the element of union, and εἰς denoting 
its purpose. This syntax seems preferable to connecting the 
phrase with the ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα of the first verse, as is done by 
Calovius, or even with παρακληθῶσιν of the first clause of 
this verse, as is proposed by Storr and Fatt; for in this last 
connection καί would seem to be superfluous, or it must 
begin a new clause and receive another than its merely 
copulative signification. Luther, in his version, wrongly 
omits καί, and renders—in der Liebe zu allem Reichthum; and 
this is also the rendering of the Peschito SiN>}3 pao coXs. 
The two things ‘have, indeed, a close connection. Pascal 
remarks, “in order to love human things, it is necessary to 
know them; in order to know those that are divine, it 15 
necessary to love them.” The conjunction καί is simply copula- 
tive, and εἰς points out the purpose or design, which might 
have been expressed by iva, with a verb. The noun πληρο- 
φορία is full certainty or assurance. 1 Thess. i. 5; Heb. vi. , 
11; x. 22. “The full assurance of understanding,” is the | 
fixed persuasion that you comprehend the truth, and that it is \ 
the truth which you comprehend. It is not merely the 
vivid belief, that what occupies the mind is the Divine 
verity, but that this verity is fully understood. The mind 
which has reached this elevation, is confident that it does not 
misconceive the statements of the gospel, or attach to them 
a meaning which they do not bear. Believing them to be of 
God, it is certain that it apprehends the mind of God in His 
message. If a man possesses not this certainty—if the view 
he now cherishes differ from that adopted by him again—if 
what he holds to-day be modified or explained away to- 
morrow—if new impressions chase away other convictions, 
and are themselves as rapidly exiled in turn—if, in short, he 
is “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge 
of the truth,” then such dubiety and fluctuation present a soil 
most propitious to the growth and progress of error. And 
as the mental energy is frittered away by such indecision, the 
mind becomes specially susceptible of foreign influence and 
impression. It was the apostle’s earnest desire that the 


119 COLOSSIANS II. 2. 


Colossian church, and the members of the other churches 
referred to, should assuredly understand the new religion— 
its facts and their evidence—its doctrines and their connec- 
tions—its promises and their basis—its precepts and their 
adaptation—its ordinances and their simplicity and power. 
The fixed knowledge of those things would fortify their 
minds against the seductive insinuations of false teachers, who 
mix just so much truth with their fallacies as often to give 
them the fascinations of honesty and candour, and who impose 
them as the result of superior enlightenment, and of an 
extended and advantageous research. The mind most lable 
to be seduced is that which, having reached only an imperfect 
and one-sided view, is continually disturbed and perplexed by 
opposite and conflicting ideas which from its position it is 
unable to reconcile, but is forced to wonder whether really 
it has attained to just conceptions of the truth. The traveller 
who has already made some progress, but who begins gra- 
dually to doubt and debate, to lose faith in himself, and 
wonder whether he be in the right way after all, is prepared 
to listen to the suggestions of any one who, under semblance 
of disinterested friendship, may advise to a path of danger and 
ruin. No wonder that the apostle describes the value of the 
full assurance of understanding by his favourite term—‘“riches” 
—for it is a precious form of intellectual wealth, and no 
wonder that he yearns for the Colossian Christians to possess 
it in no scanty measure, but in all its opulence. Σξύνεσις has 
been explained under i. 9. 

Εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ---““Τὸ the full knowledge of the mystery of God, and 
of the Father, and of Christ.” So reads the Received Text. 
The connection of this clause has been variously understood. 
It is needless to make the preceding clause a parenthesis, and 
join this one to παρακληθῶσιν. Biihr takes it as denoting the 
end, while the clause before it specifies the means—“ unto all 
riches of the full assurance of understanding, so that ye may 
know the mystery.” But, perhaps, the clause is merely par- 
allel with the preceding one, or, rather is a farther development 
of it. The noun ἐπίγνωσις is plainly shown here to meaf 
“ full knowledge,” as, indeed, we have argued under Ephes. 


COLOSSIANS IU. 3. 113 


i. 18, and in this epistle 1. 9. The idea of a mystery is taken 
from verses 26 and 27 of the former chapter. The mystery, 
he says, had been long hid; but God had chosen to reveal 
the riches of its glory, and therefore he desires that his 
readers should not only distinctly recognize it, and highly 
value it, but specially, that they should fully comprehend its 
contents and lessons. The reading of the concluding portion 
of the clause is sadly perplexed and uncertain. The difficulty 
relates to the words of the Received Text—xail πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. These have on their side D™, Εἰ, J, K, and several 
of the Fathers; Codices 47, 73, with Chrysostom and Pela- 
gius, who have—zarpd¢ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, followed by the 
Syriac, Vulgate, and Coptic Versions. Codices A, C, 4, read 
-- τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, while Codices 41 and 61 
have—rov Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The word πατρός 
is omitted by some MSS., while Codex 17 reads—rvov Θεοῦ 
τοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ. D?" presents the clause thus—rvov Θεοῦ 6 ἐστι 
Χριστός, but B has—rov Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ. Hilary follows the 
last reading, but Clement and Ambrosiaster quote—rov Θεοῦ 
ἐν Χριστῷς The shorter reading, ending with Θεοῦ, is found 
in 37, 67°, 71, 80’, and 116. For the short reading without the 
clause, Tischendorf, in his second edition, Griesbach, Scholz, 
Heinrichs, Biithr, Olshausen, De Wette, and Rinck, have de- 
clared themselves. The reading—rov Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ has advo- 
cates in Lachmann, Meyer, and Steiger. It is plain, on the 
one hand, that many of these readings are nothing but glosses 
to escape or solve a difficulty ; and it is as clear, on the other, 
that none of them possesses preponderating authority. For A, 
B, and D read differently, and the older Fathers and Versions 
agree with none of them, since Cyril has, for example—rov Θεοῦ 
καὶ Χριστοῦ, and Theophylact cites—rov Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν Χριστῷ, 
while Hilary explains, by adding, Deus Christus sacramentum est. 

(Ver. 3.) Ἔν ᾧ εἰσι πάντες of ϑησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς 
γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι---“ In which are hidden all the treasures 
of wisdom and knowledge.” ‘The reference in the relative is 
supposed, by the great majority of interpreters, from Chry- 
sostom down to Baumgarten-Crasius, to be to Christ. The 
margin of our English version gives “wherein,” that is, in 
which mystery; and this, we apprehend, is the right construc- 

I 


114 COLOSSIANS II. 3. 


tion. Such is the view of Suicer, Cocceius, Réel, Lange, 
Grotius, Bengel, Huther, Bihr, Bohmer, De Wette, &c. If 
the short reading of the previous clause be adopted, then 
there is no mention of Christ in the last verse at all. But 
especially the apostle is speaking of the mystery, and he here 
eulogizes it as worthy of fuller and farther insight. Nay, he 
places it in sharp contrast with the false and hollow error 
which was insinuating itself among them. That system which 
was “not after Christ,” might boast of its stores of philosophy, 
but they were not to be captivated by its pretences. They 
needed not to go in quest of higher truth and loftier science ; 
for in that mystery proclaimed among them were deposited 
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The nouns σοφία 
and γνῶσις are, perhaps, not to be carefully distinguished, 
as the words seem to be used in reference to the termimology 
of the false teachers. The words appear to have been favourite 
epithets with them—were, in fact, a sample of the enticing 
words referred to in the next verse, for they imagined them- 
selves in possession of the only genuine wisdom and knowledge. 
But the apostle affirms, in opposition, that only in this mystery 
are they to be discovered in reality, and that all else bearing 
the name is but hollow semblance and counterfeit. Whatever 
distinction may be made, as in Rom. xi. 33; 1 Cor. xii. 8, 
such seems to us the preferable exegesis in the verse before 
us. Augustine makes a distinction, by referring to the Vul- 
gate translation of Job xxviii. 28—“ Behold piety is wisdom 
—sapientia, and to abstain from evil is knowledge—scientia.”” 
Calvin says — inter sapientiam et intelligentiam non porro 
magnum discrimen, quia duplicatio ad augendum valet ; but this 
statement is scarcely correct. The two substantives may refer 
to the same thing, but under different aspects. Not that the 
first comprehends res humanae, and the other res divinae ; or, 
that the one is practical sagacity, and the other theoretic 
knowledge of God. This latter distinction, though it be com- 
monly held, and may be true of the English terms wisdom 
and knowledge, is not warranted by Scripture usage. Col. 
i 9; 1 Cor. 17, 21;. 0.6; vm. 1. Meyer saysiieonee 


1 Enarratio in Psal. exxxy. Op. vol. 4, ed. Paris, 1835. 


COLOSSIANS II. 3. 115 


is the more general, and γνῶσις the more special. The 
latter term is divine science, and the first is that enlighten- 
ment which springs from it. So that the first noun is subjec- 
tive, and the second objective. The study of the γνῶσις 
brings the σοφία. Wisdom results from penetration into this 
knowledge. Knowledge is the study, and wisdom its fruit. 
The verse before us is thus a high encomium on the mystery, 
and an inducement to the apostle’s readers to value it, to cling 
to it, to study it, and to enthrone it in a niche so lofty and 
inaccessible, that it could neither be rivalled nor dethroned. 
We quite agree, with Robinson, that ἀπόκρυφοι does not 
denote “hid” in its literal sense, for the apostle says that God 
had made known the mystery; but “hid” in the secondary 
sense of being laid or treasured up, as in Septuagint, Isa. xlv. 
3; 1 Mace. i. 23. So that there is no need to adopt the 
suggestion of Bengel and Meyer, which denies that ἀπόκρυφοι 
is the predicate, and would render—“ in whom all the hidden 
treasures are laid up.” Biihr objects to the same mode of 
construction, that the article should precede ἀπόκρυφοι; but 
the objection is not based upon an invariable rule or practice. 
And we are also, by the exegesis which we propose, saved all 
the perplexity which the idea of concealment originates. For 
those treasures are hidden, according to Béhmer and Dave- 
nant, from the unbelieving world; according to Olshausen, 
from the unassisted intellect; and, according to Calvin, they 
are said to be hidden because the preaching of the cross is 
always foolishness to the world. Abditam sapientiam, says 
Melancthon, guia mundus non eam intelligit, as 1s said in 1 Cor. 
ii. 7, 8; Matt. xi. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. Θησαυρός has a 
similar tropical meaning, as well in the classics as in the New 
Testament. Xenophon, Memor. 1. 6—14; Hesiod, Op. 715; 
Eurip. Jou. 923; Plato, Phil. 15, e; Matt. vi. 20; Mark x. 
21; 2 Cor. iv. 7. The meaning of the apostle then is, that in 
this mystery are stored up all the treasures of wisdom and 
knowledge; not a few scanty fragments of faded wealth, but 
the entire amount without alloy or defalcation. Here, and 
not in the vaunted theosophy of the false teachers, might a 
man become wise, by being initiated into the true knowledge. 
Let it be the knowledge of God which he yearns after—the 


110 COLOSSIANS Il, 3. 


comprehension of the essence, character, attributes, and 
works of the invisible Majesty—then he will obtain full satis- 
faction neither from the palpable limnings of nature—for they 
present but a shaded profile, nor yet from the subtleties of a 
spiritualistic philosophy — for it can only bring out a dim 
and impersonal abstraction. But God as He is—in every 
element and relation—in the fulness of His being and glory— 
is revealed in the gospel, and there may we find Him out, not 
by searching, but by looking on Him as pourtrayed not only in 
His power and wisdom, His eternity and infinitude, but also 
in His grace and love, His condescension and merey—those 
properties of His nature which creation could not have dis- 
closed, nor human ingenuity have either imagined or anticipated. 

The highest conceptions of the Divine polity are to be 
learned, also, from this mystery. By means of the atonement, 
it achieves what to human administration is utter impos- 
sibility. It pardons without weakening the authority of law, 
or bringing prerogative in conflict with enactment. Earthly 
governments proclaim the ordinance, and then apprehend, 
convict, and punish offenders; and when they do commute 
a sentence or grant a respite, they are usually prompted 
to such clemency because the penalty is felt to be too severe 
in the circumstances, and then so-called mercy is only equity 
correcting the inequalities of law. Were they not to punish, 
they would dissolve the bonds of society and speed their own 
extinction. The sphere of the tribunal is that of imdictment 
and proof, and according to the evidence so are the verdict 
and sentence. But God, the Legislator, is not under such 
restraint, for while he proclaims a universal amnesty to all 
who will avail themselves of it, He neither by this anomaly 
repeals the code, nor declares it superseded for the crisis, 
nor suffers it to fall into contempt; but, charging sinners with 
their atrocious guilt, and convincing them that they are most 
justly liable to the menaced punishment, He at once absolves 
them, without encouraging them to sin with hope of impunity, 
or weakening the allegiance of the universe by the apparent 
reversal of those righteous principles which are the habitation 
of His throne, and which have guided and glorified His past 


procedure. By the dignity of His nature and the extent of 


» 


COLOSSIANS II, 3. 117 


His humiliation, the perfection of His obedience and the sub- 
stitutionary efficacy of His death, that Christ whom the false 
teachers depreciated, had glorified the law more than if man 
had never sinned, or having fallen, had himself suffered the 
unmitigated penalty. No philosophy ever dreamed of such 
an awful expedient as God robed in humanity, and in that 
nature dying to redeem His guilty creatures—whose name, 
nature, and legal liabilities he had assumed ; and such a scheme 
never found a place in any system of jurisprudence. Such 
knowledge was too wonderful for them, it was high, they 
could not attain unto it. 

On the other hand, the false preachers laboured in incul- 
cating asceticism, penance, and neglect of the body, as a 
means of weaning the spirit from earth, and bringing it into 
fellowship with God. They also gave unwarranted functions 
to angels and higher spirits, as if they could shield the soul 
from guilt, and as if contact with them spiritualized it, and 
helped to raise it to blessedness. They put mysticism in room 
of the atonement, and ascribed to the hosts of God that guar- 
dian power which belongs to faith and the Divine Spirit. 
Theirs was a temple without an altar or a propitiation, though 
it was crowded with genti and tutelar subordinates. It was 
vain philosophy and out of place; for it fell short of heaven, 
and could secure no benefit upon earth. It was wrong about 
God, and erring about man—it gave him a stone for bread. 

But “wisdom and knowledge” were in the evangelical 
mystery—the veritable and coveted γνῶσις was there. There 
might be discovered the truest theosophy—no gaudy vision, 
but blessed fact—God in Christ, and our God; there would 
also be found the richest philosophy, in which antagonisms 
were reconciled, and all the relations of the universe were 
harmonized by the cross, the mystery of man’s origin, 
nature, and destiny, cleared up; while the noblest ethics were 
propounded, in unison with all our aspirations and spiritual 
instincts—plainly showing what man may be, ought to be, 
and will be, through the influence and operations of the Holy 
Ghost—the crowning and permanent gift of the Christian 
dispensation. What men have sought in deep and perplexing 
speculations on the order and origin of all things, they will 


118 COLOSSIANS II. 4. 


find in this mystery. What they have striven in daring 
adventure to reach about the existence and issue of evil, they 
will get here laid to their hand. The intricacies and anomalies 
of their own mental and moral nature, on which they have 
constructed so many conflicting and self-destructive theories— 
which still have repeated themselves in successive generations, 
are here solved by Him who knows our frame. ‘The inter- 
minable discussions on man’s chief end, which ended only in 
fatigue and disappointment, are silenced here by the “still small 
voice.” ‘Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the 
disputer of this world?” Let them come and see, and learn, 
and they will find that, in the Divine plan of redemption are 
manifested the noblest elements of reflection, and the purest 
objects of spiritual faith and attachment. For theology trans- 
cends all the sciences in circuit and splendour. It brings us 
into immediate communion with Infinitude and Eternity. Its 
theme is the Essence and Attributes of Jehovah, with the 
truth He has published, and the works He has wrought. It 
tells us of the unity and spirituality of His nature, the majesty 
of His law, the infinitude of His love, and the might and 
triumph of his Son, as the conqueror of sin and death. The 
intellect is unable to comprehend all its mysteries by superior 
subtlety and penetration, and the imagination only fatigues 
itself in the attempt to grasp and realize its destiny. Its fields 
of thought can never be exhausted, even though the slower 
processes of understanding were superseded by the eager and 
rapid discoveries of unwearied intuition. ‘Who can, by 
searching, find out God; who can find out the Almighty unto 
perfection?” And after those combinations of wisdom, power, 
and love, which characterize the counsels and government of 
God, have attracted and engaged the inquiring soul through 
innumerable ages, there will still remain heights to be scanned, 
and depths to be explored, facts to be weighed, and wonders 
to be admired. [Ephes. 111. 10.] 

The apostle approaches nearer and nearer his subject—the 
seductions of a false and pretentious philosophy. 

(Ver. 4.) Τοῦτο δὲ Aéyw—“ Now, this I say.” This present 
tense some regard as future in its look, as if the apostle meant 
—‘ what Iam about to utter is intended to prevent your being 


COLOSSIANS II. 4. 119 


led astray.” But the clause has evidently a retrospective 
reference to the preceding statement, and not exclusively 
either to the first or third verse. ‘“ What I am saying, or 
have just said, as to my anxiety for you, and as to the treasury 
of genuine science in the gospel, has this purpose—to put you 
on your guard. Do not listen to those specious harangues 
about their boasted possession of the only or the inner σοφία 
and γνῶσις. It is all a delusion intended to impose upon you. 
Purest wisdom and loftiest knowledge are not in their keeping, 
but in yours; for in that mystery into which you have been 
now so fully initiated, are hidden all the treasures of wisdom 
and of knowledge.” Quaerendum est, says Tertullian, donec 
inventat, et eredendum ubi inveneris, et nihil amplius, nisi cus- 
todiendum quod credidistt.' 

“Iva μή τις ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ---“ Lest any 
man should beguile you with enticing words.” The reading 
μηδείς, though unusual, is supported by A, B, C, D, E, while 
the reading μή τις of the Stephanic Text, rests on inferior 
authorities. The depogaent verb used by the apostle occurs 
only again in James i. 22; but is found in the Seventy. 
1 Sam. xix. 17. It is found also in Demosthenes,’ where 
it signifies to miscount. Here it denotes to delude by 
false reasoning, as in Alschines, p. ὅθ, (ed. Dobson, vol. xii. 
53); Polyb. 16, 10, 3; Gen. xxix. 25; Josh. ix. 22, (28). 
The means of deception are characterized by one pithy and 
expressive compound—mfavodvyia. The word occurs only 
in this place. The cognate verb which is found in the classical 
writers,® is defined by Passow to mean—to bring forward 
reasons in order to prove anything likely or probable; or, as 
we might say in English—‘“ to talk so as to talk one over.” 
The substantive occurs in Plato ;* and the word, in its separate 
parts, πιθανοὶ λόγοι, is found in Josephus and Philo.’ The 


1 De Praescrip. Haeret. cap. ix. Opera, vol. ii. p. 12, ed. Oehler. 

2 822, 25; 1037, 15, ed. Reisk.; or vol. vii. p. 413; vol. viii. p. 43, of Oratores 
Alttici. ed. Dobson. 

3. Arist. Eth. i. 1. Diodorus Sic. i. 39; xiii. 95. Diogenes, L. 10, 87, ed. 
Hiibner. 

* Theaet. § 52, vol. iii. p. 440, ed. Bekker, London. In this place it is joined with 
εἰκός, and denotes deception; probability being opposed to ἀσόδειξιν καὶ ἀνάγκην -- 
conclusive demonstration. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. iii. 694. 

® Joseph. Antiq. viii. 9. Philo, de Migratione Ab. νοὶ. iii. p. 490, ed. Pfeiffer. 


120 COLOSSIANS II. 5. 


term is here employed in a bad sense,—to characterize that 
teaching which aimed to fascinate their mind and debauch 
their conscience, by its specious sophistry. This is a com- 
mon accompaniment of heretical novelty. It professes, by a 
process of dilution or elimination, to simplify what is obscure, 
unravel what is intricate, reconcile what is involved in dis- 
crepancy, or adapt to reason what seems to be above it. Or it 
deals in mystery, and seeks to charm by a pretence of occult 
, wisdom, and the discovery of recondite senses and harmonies. 
it was a form of similar mysticism, priding itself in inti- 
jmate communion with the invisible and the spiritual, that 
}seems to have been introduced at Colosse. How much need, 
| therefore, they had of that “full assurance of understanding” 
| which the apostle so earnestly wished them to possess. Such 
| illumination was a perfect shield against this delusive rhetoric, 
with which they might be so artfully and vigorously plied. 

' (Ver. 5.) Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν 
ὑμῖν siue— For though indeed in the flesh I be absent, yet in 
the spirit with you am J.” Tép gives the reason why the 
writer so warns them. It is refinement on the part of 
Theophylact to make the sense—“I sce in spirit the false 
teachers, and therefore bid you be on your guard.” The 
meaning is very plain. Personally the apostle was not, and 
could not be, at Colosse; but mentally he was there. In 
1 Cor. v. 8, 4, the apostle employs τῳ oémari—a more Hel- 
lenic phrase. It is in opposition to the plain sense to refer 
πνεῦμα, with Ambrosiaster, Grotius, and Lord Barrington, 
to the Holy Spirit; as if a special inspiration had kept the 
apostle cognizant of what was transacting at Colosse. When 
one takes a very deep and continuous interest in a distant 
community, he is not only ever picturing them to his imagina- 
tion, but he so transports himself, in idea, to their locality, 
that he walks and speaks with them, is an inmate of their 
dwellings and a guest at their table, is engaged in all their 
occupations, and feels himself for the moment to be one of 
themselves. So it was with the apostle, and the absent church 
in Asia Minor. Σὺν is similarly employed in Philip. i. 23; 
1 Thess. iv. 17. That this language does not by any means 
imply a previous residence in Colosse, as Wiggers supposes, 


μος ον τς ene 


COLOSSIANS II. 5. 121 


has been shown in the Introduction to this volume. The par- 
ticle ἀλλά is rendered “yet’—doch, by Huther; attamen, by 
Bihr—a translation which it may often bear after εἰ or εἄν. 
There is no need at all for supposing such an ellipsis as 
the following,—I am absent, still not wholly ignorant of you, 
or uninterested in you, ἀλλά, but I am with you in spirit. 
Hartung, ii. p. 40; Kiihner, ὃ 741, 18; Klotz, ad Devarius, 
vol. ii. 18; and Devarius, vol. 1. 7. 

Χαίρων καὶ βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν TAgtev—* Joying and behold- 
ing your order.” One would naturally expect the apostle to 
say—seeing and rejoicing; that is, rejoicing because he saw. 
Biihr adduces Josephus as expressing himself similarly—ipac 
ev ἔχοντας χαίρω καὶ βλέπω. But the German commentator 
misquotes the Jewish historian, or rather the best MSS. show 
that he uses the participle βλέπων, as does the apostle, and 
not the verb. De Wette adopts this form—‘ with joy seeing 
your order.” Calvin and Estius have it—‘ rejoicing because 
I see your order,” and others—* guadeo videns.” Winer, fol- 
lowed by Olshausen, takes καί in the sense of scilicet—“ I am 
with you rejoicing, inasmuch as I see your order.” Fritzsche 
is nearer our view when he solves the difficulty thus—rejoicing 
over you, ἐφ vuiv—laetans de vobis—and seeing your array.* 
Dismissing the idea of a hendiadys and a zeugma—taking καί 
in its ordinary sense, and neither as causal nor explicative ; 
and seeing τάξιν can belong only to one of the verbs βλέπω, 
we come to the conclusion of Meyer, that the first participle 
qualifies the clause—‘ present with you.” The meaning is— 
I am present with you in spirit, rejoicing in this ideal fellow- 
ship, and viewing your order. His spiritual presence with 
them was a source of joy, and it enabled him to see their 
orderly array and consistency. The sentiment is somewhat 
similar to that contained ini. 3,4. There he says, that the 
accounts which he had received about them prompted him, as 
often as he prayed, to thank God for them; here he tells them 
that his being with them in spirit was a source of joy, and 
neither of doubt, disquietude, nor sorrow. And the verb 
βλέπων is used with special appropriateness, as the apostle 


1 See Bahr, in loc. Kypke, apud 1 Cor. iv. 15. 2 § 58, 5. 
3 Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. ii. p. 425. 


199 COLOSSIANS IL. 5. 


supposes himself to be among them, looking around him and 
taking a survey of their condition. 2 Cor. vil. 8; Rom. vu. 
23. Schleusner, referring to a common trope, indeed says 
quaintly, of the verb—de omnibus reliquis sensibus corporis 
usurpatur, ut adeo [Ξλέπειν saepe sit audire, as in Matt. xv. 31, 
where it is said, that the people saw the dumb speak. But 
the meaning there is not, that they heard them speak, but that 
they saw the whole phenomenon of the restoration of hearing. 
The Lexicographer instances also the verse before us, as if 
the apostle meant to say, that he knew of their order from 
hearing the reports of others. But such an exegesis is truly 
bathos, and robs the sentiment of its spirit and beauty. 

While the noun τάξις, among its other uses, is often found 
as a military term,’ denoting the result of that discipline to 
which an army is subjected, and also sometimes describing the 
symmetry and arrangement of society ;° it has besides the em- 
phatic signification of good order.’ Thus Chrysostom uses, in 
explanation, εὐταξία. In the latter significant sense, the apostle 
here employs the term—‘“ seeing your good order.” What 
the writer refers to, we may learn from his own usage. And 
first, the apostle accuses certain members of the church of 
Thessalonica of a breach of order—that they walked ἀτάκτως--- 
‘disorderly ;” whereas of himself and coadjutors he says—é6rx 
οὐκ ἠτακτήσομεν ἐν Uuiv— for we were not disorderly among 
you,” and again, he adds—axotvouev γάρ τινας περιπατοῦντας 
ἐν ὑμῖν araxktwe— for we hear that some among you walk 
disorderly.” 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 11. The disorder referred to 
in this passage, was the strong and vicious tendency to idle- 
ness which had been manifested in Thessalonica—some refusing 
to work and earn a subsistence, and aiming to throw them- 
selves on the liberality of the richer brethren in the church. 
This breach of order was private and personal. 1 Thess. ν. 14. 
And secondly, after rebuking the church in Corinth, for the 
turbulence and confusion caused by the display of spiritual gifts, 
he sums up by saying—“ let all things be done decently and 
in order,—kat κατὰ τάξιν." There had been a social or ecclesi- 


1 Suidas, sub voce. Josephus, B. Jud. iii. 9, 2. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, 6. 
2 Dem. 200, Orat. At. vol. v. p. 308, ed. Dobson. Plato, Crit. 109. 
3 Plato, Gorg. 504, Leg. 875. Polybius, i. 4, 


COLOSSIANS II. 5. 123 


astical breach of order. Perhaps to both kinds of order does 
the apostle here refer. In their individual consistency and 
purity of character, in their unshaken attachment to the truth 
in midst of seduction, and in all the arrangements and forms of 
their worship and discipline, such good order was observed, 
as that error was excluded, unity preserved, and edification 
promoted. It is a meagre explanation of Michaelis and 
Heinrichs, to represent this order in the vulgar sense of sub- 
jection to the office-bearers, and as opposed to insubordination. 
Theophylact and Huther are more correct in referring it to 
love, which, at least, was the bond of union, and one principal 
support of order. 

Καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν---- And the 
solidity. of your faith in Christ.” The noun στερέωμα is not 
found elsewhere in the New Testament. Representing, m the 
first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew ym, and rendered in the 
Vulgate jirmamentum, it signifies something solid or compact, 
such as the foundation of a building. It naturally came to 
signify not the object, but the quality which characterizes it— 
firmness or hardness. Ps. Ixxii. 4. So that it here points 
out that feature in the faith of the Colossians which specially 
commended it to the notice and eulogy of the apostle, to wit, 
its unyielding nature, or the stiffness of its adherence to its 
one object—Christ. In such a crisis as that, when fluctuation 
would have been incipient ruin, it was not the elevation of 
their faith, nor its growth, nor any of its fruits, but this one 
feature of it—its unshaken constancy—which the watchful eye 
of the apostle so carefully noted, and so joyously recorded. 
Acts xvi. 5; 1 Pet. v. 9. The very position of the words is 
emphatic—rije εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως, as if εἰς X. distinguished 
and glorified the faith. [Ephes.i.1.] It reposed on Christ 
—as unshaken as its object. His love never wavers, His 
power never fails, His fidelity never resiles from its pledge. 
And those unseen blessings which faith surveys are unchang- 
ing in their certainty and glory. The portals of heaven are 
never barred—its living stream is never dried up; the pearls 
of its gates are unsoiled, nor is the gold of its pavement ever 
worn through. Surely, then, faith ought to be as steadfast as 
the foundation on which it rests, and the object which it 


1984 COLOSSIANS IL. 6. 


contemplates and secures. It is out of place, with Bengel and 
others, to make this noun a species of adjective to πίστεως, as 
if the meaning were firma fides non patitur quicquam ex ordine 
suo movert. Nor is it warrantable on the part of Olshausen 
and Meyer, to take τάξις in its military sense, and to make 
στερέωμα the power which strengthens for the fight, or a 
species of fortification by which they were defended. Στερ- 
ἕωμα is, indeed, employed to represent the Hebrew νὴ», in Ps. 
xvi. 2, but the Greek translation is according to the general 
sense of the Hebrew term,—the proverbial firmness of a rock. 
In 1 Macc. ix. 14, quoted by Meyer, στερέωμα τῆς παρεμ[βολῆς, 
is not the fortification of the camp, but the strength of the 
army, that portion which could be relied upon for its prowess. 
In the Version of Symmachus, Isaiah xxvi. 1, it represents the 
Hebrew ὑπ, which the Seventy render περίτειχος ; the prin- 
cipal idea of the original term being strength, while bulwark, 
antemurale, is only a secondary and technical application. It is 
a curious reading of the clause which occurs in Augustine 
and Ambrosiaster—the former having id quod deest fidei ves- 
trae in Christo, and the latter, swpplens id quod deest utilitati 
jidei vestrae in Christum—implying that they both read ὑστέ- 
ρημα for στερέωμα. 

(Ver. 6.) Ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν 
κυριὸν, ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε --- “ As then ye have received 
Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him.” The particle οὖν turns 
us to the preceding verse, and to the fact of their order and 
steadfast faith. Calvin rightly says—laudi attexit exhorta- 
tionem. He has commended them for their order and stead- 
fast faith, and he now adds a word of warning and counsel. 
Gradually does he approach the main end of his writing. 
Ever as he comes near it does he utter some sentiment which 
delays his full admonition. He wishes by his previous allu- 
slons and warnings to prepare their minds for the final and 
thorough exposure and condemnation. And thus he has 
intimated—what thanks he offers for them, what prayers he 
presents for their deeper illumination and persistency in the 
truth—what sufferings he has endured for them, and what sym- 
pathies he has with them—what joy he felt in being mentally 
present with them, and surveying their good order and un- 


COLOSSIANS IIL. 6. 125 


swerving faith. And he has eulogized that gospel which they 
had received—as the truth—as a fruit-bearing principle—as a 
disclosure of the Divine person, exalted dignity, and saving 
work of the Son of God; and as a mystery long hidden, but 
at length revealed, and comprising in it the deep and inex- 
haustible treasures of all spiritual science. Since, therefore, 
they had received Christ Jesus, the Lord, the giver and sub- 
ject of that gospel, it surely became them to walk in Him. 

The verb παραλαμ[θάνω, signifying to take to one’s self, is 
used emphatically to. appropriate wisdom or instruction— 
much as in Scotland the faculty of acquiring knowledge is 
termed uptake. 1 Cor. xi. 23;-xv. 1—3; Gal. 1. 9—12; 
Philip. iv. 9; 1 Thess. 11.13. They had received Him, in the 
way of being taught about Him—verse 7. They had been in- 
structed, and they had apprehended the lesson. It is a super- 
ficial exegesis on the part of Theophylact, Grotius, and others, 
to make the proper name X. I. mean merely the doctrine of 
Christ. For it was Christ Himself whom they had received— 
the sum and life of all evangelical instruction. Nay, more, 
the repetition and structure of the sentence show that the full 
meaning is—ye have received Christ Jesus as the Lord. In 
the Σ Ξ ἡδίοε of Lord they had accepted Him. ‘This was the 
testing element of their reception. The Anointed Jesus is 
now “Lord of all,” and to acknowledge His Lordship is to 
own the success of His atoning work as well as to bow to His 
sovereion authority. Thus we understand the apostle when 
he says, 1 Cor. xii. 3, “ Wherefore I give you to understand, 
that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus 
accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, 
but by the Holy Ghost.” On the special meaning and use of 
the terms see Ephes. i. 2. The form of error introduced 
among them which would rob the Saviour of His dignity, led 
to the denial of the Messiahship in its true sense; and in its 
spiritualism, it would, at the same time, explain away His 
humanity. 

These expressive terms are thus the symbols of a vast 
amount of instruction. Whatever men receive in the gospel, 
it is Christ. He is the soul of doctrine—for prophets foretold 
Him, and apostles preached Him; and the oracles of the one 


120 COLOSSIANS IL. 6. 


and the sermons of the other had no splendour but from Him, 
and no vitality but in Him. Ethical teaching has as close a 
connection with Him, for it expounds His law, defers to 
His authority, and exhibits the means of obedience and fer- 
tility in His imparted Spirit and strength. Promise is based upon 
His veracity, and sealed in His blood, and suffering looks for 
sympathy to Him who bled and wept. The great mystery of the 
Divine government is solved in Him, and in Him alone is the 
enigma of man’s history and destiny comprehended. Spiritual 
life has its root in Him—the growth of the Divine image, and 
the repose of the soul in the bosom of Him who made it. In 
believing the gospel, men receive no impersonal abstraction, 
but Christ Himself—tight, safety, love, pattern, power, and 
life. And they receive Him as “the Lord.” He won the Lord- 
ship by His death. He rose from the sepulchre to the throne. 
To Him the universe bends in-awful homage, and the church 
worships Him in grateful allegiance. The Colossians had 
received Him as the Lord, and surely no seduction would ever 
lead them to discrown Him, and transfer their fealty to one of 
the crowded and spectral myriads which composed the celes- 
tial hierarchy—one of a dim and cloudy mass which was 
indistinct from its very number, surrounding the throne, but 
never daring to depute any of its members to ascend it. 

‘““As ye have received Him, walk in Him.” The particle we 
denotes something more than a reason, for it indicates manner 
“according as.” Matt. vii. 13; Luke xiv. 22; 1 Cor. ii. 5; 
Titus i. 5. The demonstrative adverb which follows we, in sense, 
is here as often omitted. "Ev αὐτῷ meourareire— Walk in 
Him.” The verb is often used to describe manner of life, or 
visible conduct; and that life is to be enjoyed in union with 
Christ. If reception of Christ the Lord refer to inner life, 
then this walk refers to its outer manifestation. It was to be 
no inert or latent principle. Christ was not merely a theme 
to be idly contemplated or admired in a supine and listless 
reverie; nor a creed to be carelessly laid up as in a distant 
and inaccessible deposit; nor an impulse which might produce 
a passing and periodical vibration, and then sink into abeyance 
and exhaustion; but a power, which, in diffusing itself over 
mind and heart, provided for its own palpable manifestation 


COLOSSIANS II, 6. 127 


and recognition in the daily life. For there could be no 
walking in Him, without the previous reception of Him. The 
outer life is but the expression of the inner. Ability to walk 
is the result of communicated animation. Nay, more, if they 
received Him, they could not but walk in Him The recep- 
tion of such truth necessitates a change of heart. It is a 
belief; which, from its very nature, produces immediate results. 
In Him, and in Him according to the character in which they 
had received Him were they to walk. And they would not 
walk in Him as they received Him, if they were tempted to 
reject His functions and qualifications as the Christ, or in any 
form, or on any pretext, to modify, depreciate, or set aside 
His claims; or if they were prompted to deny or explain 
away His true humanity as Jesus—taking from His life its 
reality, and from His death its atoning value; or if they were 
induced to withhold their allegiance from Him as Lord, the 
one rightful governor, proprietor, and judge. There must, 
therefore, be faith in Him as the Christ, the consciousness of 
a near and living relation to Him as Jesus, the kinsman, the 
brother-man; and deep and loyal obedience to Him as Lord. 
“He is thy Lord, worship thou Him.” “In Him” pre-supposes 
the reception of Him; and to “walk in Him,” is to have life in 
Him and from Him, with thought and emotion shaped and 
inspired by His presence. The hallowed sphere of walk is in 
Him, but beyond this barrier are sin and danger, false philo- 
sophies, and mazy entanglements. If they walked im Christ, 
they would be fortified against those doubts which the perni- 
cious teachings of error, with their show of wisdom, were so 
apt to superinduce. 

(Ver. 7.) "EppiZopévor καὶ ἐποικοδομούμενοι ἐν αὐτῷ — 
“Having been rooted, and being built up in Him.” [Ἔρῤρι- 
Couévor, Ephes. 11. 17. ᾿Ἐποικοδ. Ephes. ii. 20.] The par- 
ticiples are used in a tropical sense, and are connected with 
the preceding clause—‘“ walk in Him.” The figures, as Meyer 
remarks, neither agree with the preceding verb, nor with one 
another. But the main ideas are stability and growth—the 
root, “in Him,” beyond the possibility of eradication; and the 
growth that of a symmetrical structure, which, “in Him,” has 
its unshaken foundation. The first participle, by its tense, 


128 COLOSSIANS II. 6. 


indicates a previous state, and the second a present condition. 
They had already been rooted, but they were still to be 
making progress. Were such their character, were they 
rooted in Christ, and not simply adhering to Him by some 
superficial tie, and were they being built up, or growing in 
gracious attainment, then might they defy all the efforts of the 
false teachers to detach them from the truth. 

Καὶ BeBacobpevor ἐν τῇ πίστει καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε--“ And 
stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught.” The prepo- 
sition is omitted in some Codices, and by Lachmann and 
Tischendorf. If this reading be adopted, we should be in- 
clined, with Meyer, to take the dative in an instrumental 
sense—“ stablished by means of the faith;” but if ἐν be 
retained, perhaps the common rendering is preferable. See 
under i. 7. They were to be confirmed in the faith which had 
been taught them—that system of belief which Epaphras had 
preached to them. We should agree with Olshausen, against 
Meyer, that πίστις is faith in the objective sense, were it not 
for ἐν αὐτῇ in the following clause, which we believe to be 
genuine, though it is wantingin A and C. For the apostle says 
---περισσεύοντες ἐν αὐτῇ. This abounding bids us take faith 
in a subjective sense—the conscious belief of the truth—and 
in that belief they were not to be stinted, cautious, or timid, 
but they were to abound. Their faith was not to be scanty as 
a rivulet in summer, but like the Jordan in harvest, overflow- 
ing its banks. And they were to abound in it— 

Ἔν ebyapioria— With thanksgiving.” A similar con- 
struction is found in Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. 11.9; vin. 7. They 
could not but be thankful that the truth had been brought to 
them, and that by the Divine grace they had been induced 
fully and unreservedly to believe it. Two other and opposing 
forms of construction have been proposed. Grotius renders— 
per gratiarum actionem crescentes in fide, as if the thanks were 
the means of abounding in faith; while Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, 
and Huther take it thus—abounding by means of the same in 
thanksgiving, as if faith were the means of thanksgiving. But 
the connection, as we have first given it, is more in harmony 
with the sequence and position of the words. ‘The entire 
verse is at once a precept and a warning, and were the pre- 


COLOSSIANS II, 7. 129 


cept obeyed and the warning listened to, then “ philosophy 
and vain deceit” would ply their machinations in vain. 
Having again and again approached his subject by indirect 
allusions, the apostle now boldly and fully brings it out. 
‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain 
deceit.” And we may remark in introduction, that the senti- 
ment of the verse has been sometimes greatly abused. The 
apostle has been quoted in condemnation of philosophy in 
general, though he expressly identifies the philosophy which 
he reprobates with ‘vain deceit.” Philosophy, science, or 
the pursuit and love of wisdom, cannot be stigmatized as in 
itself hostile to faith. The apostle himself has employed 
philosophy to prove the existence of the Creator, and show 
the sin and folly of polytheism and idolatry. Rom. i. 19—23. 
The attributes of the Divine nature—not in themselves cog- 
nizable by the senses—have assumed a visible embodiment in 
the works of creation, and he who fails to discover the one 
God in His productions is “ without excuse.”’ So that the 
teaching of Natural Theology is not erroneous, but defective 
—it needs not to be corrected, but only to be supplemented. 
Why should the love of wisdom be reckoned vanity, when the 
page on which man is invited to study is wide as the universe, 
and rolls back to creation? Wherever he turns his eye, on 
himself or beyond himself—above, around, or beneath him, 


1 “God, whom the wisest men acknowledge to bee a Power uneffable, and Vertue 
infinite, a Light by abundant claritie invisible; and Understanding which it selfe can 
onely comprehend, an Essence eternall and spirituall, of absolute purenesse and sim- 
plicity ; was, and is pleased to make himselfe knowne by the worke of the World: in 
the wonderfull magnitude whereof, (all which He imbraceth, filleth and sustaineth) 
we behold the Image of that glory, which cannot be measured, and withall that one, 
and yet universall Nature, whick cannot be defined. In the glorious Lights of 
Heaven, we perceive a shadow of his divine Countenance; in his mercifull provision 
for all that live, his manifold goodnesse: and lastly, in creating and making existent 
the World universall, by the absolute Art of his owne Word, his Power and Almighti- 
nesse; which Power, Light, Vertue, Wisdome, and Goodnesse, being all but attri- 
butes of one simple Essence, and one God, we in all admire, and in part discerne per 
speculum creaturarum, that is, in the disposition, order, and variety of Celestiall and 
Terrestriall bodies: Terrestrial, in their strange and manifold diversities; Celestiall, 
in their beauty and magnitude; which in their continuall and contrary motions, are 
neither repugnant, intermixt, nor confounded. By these potent effects, we approch 
to the knowledge of the Omnipotent cause, and by these motions, their Almighty 
Mover.”—Sir Walter Raleigh, p. 1, History of the World, London, 1614. 

K 


130 COLOSSIANS II. 7. 


ten thousand things invite his examination. Earth and 
heaven, mind and matter, past and present, summon him to 
wake up his faculties, and scrutinize and reflect on the uni- 
verse around him. Let him look down on the sands and 
rocks of his home, and he enters into Geology. Let him 
know this ball to be one of many similar orbs in the sky, and 
Astronomy entrances him. Let him gaze at the munificent 
plenty around him, spread over zone and continent in the 
shape of trees, flowers, and animals, and he is intro- 
duced into Geography, Botany, and Zoology. Let him 
survey the relations of matter—its forms, quantities, and laws 
of mixture and motion, and at once he finds himself among 
Mathematics, Optics, Mechanics, and Chemistry. Let him 
turn his vision upon himself, and observe the attributes and 
functions of his physical life, and he dips into the mysteries of 
Anatomy and Physiology. Let him strive to learn what has 
happened before him, and in what connection he stands to 
brethren of other tongues and countries, and he 15 brought 
into acquaintanceship with History, Philology, and Political 
Economy. And, in fine, let his own conscious mind make 
itself the theme of reflection—in its powers and aspirations, 
its faculties and emotions, its obligations and destiny, and he 
is initiated into the subtleties and wonders of Metaphysics 
and Morals, Legislation and Theology. Thus, Strabo, in the 
first chapter of his Geography,' says—“ That acquaintance with 
Divine and human things constitute what is called philosophy.” 

Again, not only is philosophy a necessary result of our being 
and condition, but it is full of benefit, for the more a man 
knows his own nature, the more will he feel the adaptation of 
Christianity to it, and be persuaded of its Divine origin. The 
inner nature has its religious instincts and susceptibilities, 
which are not grafted upon it, but are of its very essence. 
As the eye is fitted for the reception of light, and light alone 
can enable it to fulfil its functions—as it is made for the light 
and the light for it—so religious truth alone is fitted to satisfy 


ΤῊ rot τὰ θεῖα καὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια ἐπιβλέποντος ὧνπερ τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἐπιστήμην 


φασίν. Vol. 1. p. 4, ed. Cramer, Berlin, 1844. Justin also characterizes philoso- 
phers thus—Kai of φιλόσοφοι of τὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ θείαν εἰδέναι ἐπαγγελλόμενοι γνῶσιν. 
Cohort. ad Graecos, p. 14, vol. i. Opera, ed, Otto, 1842. 


COLOSSIANS II. 7. 131 


those yearnings and aspirations. There is a perfect harmony 
between God’s inner revelation of Himself in man, and His 
external revelation of Himself in Scripture. Wrong belief 
may be against reason, but unbelief is against nature. A 
sound philosophy comes to this conclusion—that Christianity 
fulfils every condition—that in its God and its incarnate Jesus 
—its revelation and its atonement—its sanctifying agency and 
its future heaven—it responds to every want and hope of 
humanity. Man must have some God—it gives him the true 
one. He seeks to some revelation, and it sends him the 
genuine oracle. He relies on some sacrifice, and it shows the 
perfect atonement. He anticipates a heaven, and it provides 
him with such a home, and enables him to reach it. This 
philosophy develops what Tertullian has happily called testi- 
monium animae naturaliter Christianae. 

But it is not such philosophy, or such use of philosophy, that 
the apostle condemns—* Philosophy was, in its first descent, a 
generous, noble, thing ; a virgin beauty, a pure light, born of 
the Father of lights.”! At the same time, it is not to be denied 
that the greater portion of heresies have been allied to a false 
philosophy. Tertullian, in the seventh chapter of his De 
Praescriptione Haereticorum, says—ipsae denique haereses a 
philosophia subornantur.? Platonism and Aristotelianism had 


! Gale, Court of the Gentiles, part ii. Preface. Clement. Strom. i. p. 282. 

2 The Father justifies his accusation in the following strains:—‘ Inde aeones, 
et formae nescio quae infinitae, et trinitas hominis apud Valentinum; Pla- 
tonicus fuerat: inde Marcionis deus melior de tranquillitate; a Stoicis venerat: 
et ut anima interire dicatur, ab Epicureis observatur: et ut carnis restitutio 
negetur, de una omnium philosophorum schola sumitur: et ubi materia cum deo 
aequatur, Zenonis disciplina est: et ubi aliquid de igneo deo allegatur, Heracletus 
intervenit. adem materia apud haereticos et philosophos volutatur, idem retracta- 
tus implicantur: unde malum, et quare? et unde homo, et quomodo? et, quod 
proxime Valentinus proposuit, unde deus? scilicet de enthymesi et ectromate. 
Miserum Aristotelem! qui illis dialecticam instituit, artificem struendi et destruendi, 
versipellem in sententiis, coactam in coniecturis, duram in argtmentis, operariam 
contentionum, molestam etiam sibi ipsi, omnia retractantem, ne quid omnino tracta- 
verit. Hine illae fabulae et genealogiae interminabiles, et quaestiones infructuosae, 
et sermones serpentes velut cancer, a quibus nos apostolus refrenans nominatim philo- 
sophiam contestatur caveri oportere, scribens ad Colossenses, Videte, ne qui sit cir- 
cumveniens vos per philosophiam et inanem seductionem, secundum traditionem 
hominum, praeter providentiam spiritus sancti. Fuerat Athenis, et istam sapientiam 
humanum, aftectatricem et interpolatricem veritatis, de congressibus noyerat, ipsam 


152 COLOSSIANS II. 7. 


each in turn the ascendency, and Christianity has suffered 
from the four great forms of philosophy — Sensationalism, 
Idealism, Scepticism, and Mysticism, the error of each of 
which lies in pushing to extravagance some important truth. 
And in modern times, has not Hegelian Pantheism clothed 
itself in biblical phraseology? Its doctrine, that “the con- 
sciousness which man has of himself is the consciousness 
which God has of Himself,” finds its appropriate mythical 
representation in the mediatorial person of the God-man; while 
‘eternal life” is but the symbol of an immortality without 
individual existence. Have not men in their wildness invoked 
“the stars in their course” to fight against Him who enthroned 
above them has not forgotten that distant and insignificant 
planet on which sin and misery dwell? Have they not called 
to them the rocks and fossils of the early infancy of the 
globe to prove that the record of creation was not furnished 
by the Creator? Are there not those at the present time who 
regard inspiration as but the “fine frenzy” of an Oriental 
temperament, or look upon it as being “as wide as the world, 
as common as God,” and who, therefore, take from the bibli- 
cal records their sole, infallible, and supreme authority, 
leaving us an Old Testament without prophecies, and a New 
Testament without miracles and redemption? These are, 
verily, abuses of philosophy—* oppositions of science, falsely 
so called.” We do not, therefore, object to philosophy, or to 
the philosophical treatment of Christianity. We can have no 
horror at free thoughts and bold inquiry, so long as men 
indicate their desire to submit to the decisions of Evidence. 
There is a legitimate province for philosophy to work in, 
and “faith is the synthesis of reason and the individual - 
will.” 


quoque in suas haereses multipartitam varietate sectarum invicem repugnantium. 
Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? quid academiae et ecclesiae? quid haereticis et 
Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse, tradiderat 
dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui Stoicum et Platoni- 
cum et dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post 
Christum Iesum, nec inquisitione post evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus 
ultra credere. Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.— 
De Praescr. Haeret. p. 8, Opera, vol. ii. Lipsiae, 1854. 
1 “Essay on Faith,” in Coleridge’s Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, p. 120. 


COLOSSIANS II. 7. 133 


But the system condemned by the apostle was something 
which assumed the name of philosophy, yet had nothing of 
its spirit. It sprang from a wrong motive. So far from being 
the love of wisdom, it was the fondness of folly. It was 
nursed in a fantastic imagination, and intruded into a super- 
sensuous sphere. It did not deal with nature around it, but 
with the supernatural beyond it. It did not investigate its 
own constitution, but it pryed into the arcana of the spirit- 
world. It was wholly spectral and baseless. It developed 
superstition and crossed the path of the gospel. It lived ina 
cloud-land which it had created, and withdrew itself from the 
influence and faith of apostolical Christianity. The plain 
truths of redemption did not satisfy its prurient appetite, nor 
could it content itself with the “manifold wisdom” of the cross. 
-It longed for something more ethereal than historical facts, 
something more recondite than the mystery of godliness. It 
forestalled the Rosicrucian vanities. It peopled the spheres 
with imaginary Essences, to which it assigned both name and 
functions. It laboured to purge itself from the vulgarities of 
physical life, in order to enter this spiritual circle. It battled 
with the flesh, till the crazy nerves gave it such sights and 
sounds as it longed to enjoy. The ordinances of the New 
Testament were too tame for it, and it created a new and 
emaciating ritual for itself. It was, in short, an eccentric 
union of Judaism with the Gnostic Theosophy—a mixture 
of Jewish ritualism with Oriental mysticism. It took from 
Moses those special parts of his economy, which “sancti- 
fied to the purifying of the flesh,” and it seems to have 
deepened and exaggerated them. It selected from the Eastern 
Theosophy its armies of AZons, its array of principalities and 
powers, whom it marshalled as its mediators, and to whom it 
inculeated homage. It was smitten with the disease of him 
who will look into the sun, and who soon mistakes for realities 
the gaudy images that float before him. Such was the 
visionary science which had special charms for the inhabitants 
of Phrygia, and which in after years produced unmistakeable 
results. That the apostle means such philosophy is evident, 
for in no other way could his warning be appropriate. It was 
of a present, and not a future danger—a real, and not an 


184 COLOSSIANS IL. 8. 


imaginary jeopardy about which he so earnestly cautioned 
them. It was not, as Tertullian imagines, the whole Greek 
philosophy, for that lay not in his way; nor yet any special 
form of it, as Grotius and others have held, for the philosophy 
of the Academy and the Porch, of Epicurus and Pythagoras, 
was not the source of immediate danger to the Colossian 
church. 

(Ver. 8.) Βλέπετε, μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται 6 συλαγωγῶν διὰ 
τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς απάτης---" Be on your guard lest 
any one make a spoil of you through philosophy and 
vain deceit.” The verb βλέπω, in this sense, is sometimes 
followed by the accusative of the persons to be guarded 
against, occasionally by the genitive preceded by ἀπό, 
sometimes also by ἵνα; but most usually by μή, and its 
compounds with the aorist subjunctive. Here, however, we 
have the future indicative ἔσται, as in Heb. ii. 12. The 
apostle, therefore, does not say that the evil had happened, 
but he expresses his fear that it would happen—his misgiving, 
that what he apprehended would take place. Winer, ὃ 
60, 2; Bernhardy, p. 402; Hartung, vol. 11. 139. He 
saw the attractive subtlety, and he could not withhold the 
warning and preintimation. The expression, too, is pointed 
and emphatic—ric ὃ ovAaywy@v—more so than if he had 
employed the subjunctive, ovAaywyy. It individualizes the 
spoiler—represents him as at his work—associates vividly the 
actor with the action. Gal. i. 7. When some infer from 
the language that the apostle had only one person specially in 
his eye—one restless and attractive heresiarch, we would not 
contradict, though we are not prepared to come decidedly 
to the same conclusion. The participle, which occurs only 
here, belongs to the later Greek,’ and denotes—making a prey 
of—driving off as a booty, though it is finical on the part of 
Meyer to base the latter signification upon the expression of 
the 6th verse, walk in Hin, as if they might be caught when 
not in that walk, and forced away as a spoil. The expression 
shows the strong feeling of the apostle, and how he regarded 
their capture by that philosophy as fatal, almost beyond 


1 Heliodorus, 10, p. 512. Aristaenet. ii. ep. 22. 


COLOSSIANS IL. 8. ; 135 


recovery, to their faith and peace. It is not in accordance 
with the language to think of the false teacher or teachers 
taking faith, mind, or purity, or anything else as a prey from 
the Colossians, for the Colossians themselves are the booty. 
The means employed were— 

Διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης --“ By philosophy and 
empty delusion.” This philosophy is none other than the 
theme of the πιθανολογία of verse 4, and is nothing else in 
essence than “vain deceit.” For the second clause, where 
neither preposition nor article is repeated, explains the first— 
philosophy which was expressed in “‘ vain words,” is identical 
with “vain deceit.” There is no reality about it. It is out 
and out a delusion, a tissue of airy figments. The term 
philosophy was a favourite one in the Greek world, but it was 
extended in course of time to portions and objects of Jewish 
study by the affectation of Philo' and Josephus.? Tittmann, 
in his very one-sided essay,’ restricts the term solely to Jewish 
doctrine, and Heinrichs no less narrowly to Jewish worship. 
Perhaps the apostle would not have given any mere Jewish 
system such an appellation, but he uses the term because 
there might be in it some mixture of Gentile lore, and 
especially because the false teachers dignified their views by 
such a title. 

Kara τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων---“ After the tradition 
of men.” The preposition does not connect this with the first 
clause of the verse, as Meyer construes, and as if it showed 
the direction in which they were seduced, but it is to be 
joined with the immediately preceding words. It points out, 
not so much, as Storr supposes, the authority of that philo- 
sophy, as its general source and character. It is according to 
the tradition of men, and not according to Divine revelation. 
In 2 Thess. 11. 6, the construction is fully expressed. Ele- 
ments of the tradition here referred to are found in Matt. xv. 
2; Mark vu. 3—5; vil. 9—13; Gal.i. 14. It is not simply 


1 De Somniis, Opera, vol. v. p. 160, ed. Pfeiffer. 2 Cont. Ap. ii. 4. 

3 De Vestigiis Gnost. in N. T. frustra quaesitis, &c, Lipsiae, 1773. Compare, on 
the other hand, Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c. vol. i. p. 512. Vaughan’s 
Causes of the Corruption of Christianity, p. 167, &. Brucker, Histor. Crit. Phil. 
ii. p. 40, &e. 


136 COLOSSIANS IL. 8. 


doctrine, as Olshausen and Huther take it; nor perhaps 
Greco-Jewish doctrine, as others suppose. It was, to a 
ereat extent, that tangled mass of oral teaching, which, age 
after age, the Jews had unwarrantably engrafted on the 
written law. That farrago of unwritten statute and ritual is 
contrasted by Jesus with the “commands of God.” It was 
solely of man, and partook largely of his vanity and weakness. 
As in the instance adduced by Christ, it explained away the 
obligation of the fifth commandment by a mean quibble, 
which added impiety to filial neglect, and permitted a son to 
starve his parent under a pretence of superior liberality to 
God. It taught the payment “of mint, anise, and cummin,” 
but forgot “the weightier matters of the law, judgment, 
mercy, and faith.” It scrupled to eat with unwashed hands, 
but was forward to worship with an unregenerate heart. It 
was eloquent and precise about cleaning of cups, but vague 
and dumb about the purifying of conscience. It converted 
religion into a complicated routine, with a superstitious and 
perplexing ritual, as if man were to be saved by the ob- 
servance of ceremonies as puerile as they were cumbrous— 
a series of postures, ablutions, amulets, and vain repetitions. 
It lost sight of the spirituality of worship, but enjoimed a 
careful genuflexion. It buried ethics under a system of 
miserable and tedious casuistry. It attempted to place every- 
thing under formal regulation, and was now busied in solemn 
trifling, and now lost in utter indecency. It was mighty 
about the letter, and oblivious of the spirit. It rejoiced in the 
oblation of a ram, but had no sympathy with the “sacrifice of 
a broken and contrite heart.” It drew water every year from 
the well of Siloam with a pompous procession, but had no 
thirst for the living stream which its prophets had predicted 
and described. It. would drill man into a fatiguing devotion. 
It trained to the mere mummery of worship when it prescribed 
the movement of eye and foot, of head and arm. It intruded 
its precepts into every relation, and attempted to fill out the 
Divine law by laying down direction for every supposable 
case. It was not content with leading principles, but added 
innumerable supplements. It surrounded the rite of circum- 
cision with many ridiculous minutiae. It professed to guard 


COLOSSIANS II. 8. 137 


the sanctity of the Sabbath by a host of trifling injunctions, 
descending to the needle of the tailor, the pen of the scribe, 
and the wallet of the beggar. The craftsman was told that he 
was guilty if he tied a camel-driver’s knot, or a sailor’s knot, 
on that day, but not guilty if he merely tied a knot which he 
could loose with one of his hands; and that he might leap 
over a ditch, but not wade through the water that lay in it. 
It declared by what instrument the paschal lamb should be 
roasted, and how a jar of wine must be carried during a festival; 
with what. gestures a phylactery was to be put on, and with 
what scrupulous order it was to be laid aside. It left nothing 
to the impulse of a living piety. It was ignorant that a 
sanctified spirit needed no such prescriptions; that the “due 
order” could only be learned from the inner oracle; and that 
obedience to all its ramified code, apart from the spirit of 
genuine faith and devotion, was only acting a part in a heart- 
less pantomime. 

And these traditions proved that they were from man, not 
only from their character, but from their verbiage and ap- 
pended sanctions. If the Mishna be, as we believe it to be, 
on the whole a faithful record of many such traditions, then, 
that they were of men is a fact inscribed on their very front. 
The recurring formula is—Rabbi Eleazar said this, but Rabbi 
Gamaliel said that; this was the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but 
that of Rabbi Jehudah; Hillel was of this mind, but Beth 
Shammai of that; Rabbi Tarphon pronounced in this way, 
but Rabbi Akivah im that; thus thought Ben Azai on the 
one hand, but thus thought Rabbi Nathan on the other ; 
such was the decision of Jochanan Ben Sacchai, but such was 
the opposite conclusion of Mathias Ben Harash. It never 
rose above a mere human dictum, and it armed its jurists with 
supreme authority. It never shook the mire off its wings, or 
soared into that pure and lofty empyrean which envelops the 
Divine tribunal, so that in His light it might see ight. What 
had been thus conceived in the dry frivolity of one age, was 
handed down to another, and the mass was swiftly multiplied 
in its long descent. The Pharisee selected one portion and 
practised it, and the Essene chose another and made it his rule 
of life. It was carried in one or other of these shapes to other 


138 COLOSSIANS IL. 8. 


lands, and though it commingled with other opinions of 
similar source and tendency, it never belied its parentage as 
the TRADITIONS OF MEN. 

Kara τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου---““ After the rudiments of the 
world.” The reference is somewhat obscure. The noun 
στοιχεῖον, is employed in 2 Pet. i. 10, 12,' to denote the 
elements of physical nature, while in Heb. v. 12, it signifies the 
simple lessons and truths of Christianity, and is opposed to 
τελειότης. In the former sense it frequently occurs in the 
ancient philosophy, as comprising fire, air, earth, and water. 
It is amusing to observe with what ingenuity some of the 
Greek Fathers’ give it such a sense in the passage before us, 
because, forsooth, all the elements are employed in the 
Jewish service—water for purification and fire for sacrifice, 
earth for the erection of altars, and the revolution of the 
aerial bodies for the determination of the sacred festivals. 
The noun sometimes signifies an elementary sound, or a letter, 
and so came to denote what is rudimentary—what is suited to 
the tuition of infancy. In this sense we understand the 
apostle to use it in Gal. iv. 3, 9, and with special reference to 
the Jewish ritual and worship. The churches in Galatia had 
a strong and wayward tendency to revert to Judaism, or at 
least to incorporate it, or a portion of it, into the new religion. 
And as they had embraced a system which was spiritual and 
mature—which was not embodied in types and ceremonies, 
but in pure, simple, universal truths—the apostle wonders 
why, with their higher and manly privilege, they should go 
back to “the weak and beggarly elements;” why, when they 
had been reading the book of Divine instruction with its com- 
plete and lasting lessons, they should revert and descend again 
to the mere alphabet. It was as if one who was able to sweep 
the heavens, and tell the sizes, distances, and revolutions of 
its luminaries, should forswear this noble exercise, and seat 
himself in an infant school, and find the highest pleasure 
among the first and trite axioms and diagrams of geometry. 

The term κόσμος, marks the nature of these elements. It is 
said that the Jewish economy had ἅγιον κοσμικόν---- a worldly 


1 Wisdom, vii. 17; xix. 18. Plato, Timaeus, 48. Vitruvius, 1—4. 
2 Especially Genadius, quoted by CEcumenius, én loc. 


COLOSSIANS II. 8. 139 


sanctuary,” an epithet placed in contrast with ra ἐπουράνια, 
and with σκηνὴ οὐ χειροποίητος. Our opinion is, that in the 
clause under discussion, the apostle refers to the Jewish wor- 
ship. Some interpreters, such as Meyer and Bohmer, think 
this exposition too restricted, and give the meaning as refer- 
ring both to the ritual of the Jewish and heathen world, sup- 
posing the “world” to signify, as it often does, the non- 
Christian portion of its population. Huther also gives it a 
similar extension of meaning—elemente des Ethischen Lebens 
in der Welt. His objections to the common interpretation 
are fully set aside by De Wette, and are not in themselves of 
any weight. But the phrase before us has a definite meaning 
affixed to it in the Epistle to the Galatians, and there it denotes 
simply the Jewish system. There was in the Galatian churches 
no attempt to heathenize, but only to Judaize; no endeavour to 
engraft heathenism, but only Judaism on the new dispensation. 

That the Mosaic economy should receive the name of ele- 
ments is easily understood, but why should such a genitive 
as κόσμου be added? It belonged to the world in a special 
sense, not to the world or age in the Jewish sense of the term, 
as if, as Wahl supposes, the meaning were—adapted to the 
men of this age. It was of the world, as being like it, evident 
to the senses, visible, and material, in contrast with what is 
spiritual and invisible. In this sense, the whole economy was 
mundane, for it was sensuous: it pictured itself to the eye in 
the stones of its edifice, the robes of its priests, the victims of 
its altars, its restrictions on diet, its frequent washings, the 
blood of its initiatory rite, and the periods of its sacred festi- 
vals. It was a worldly panorama, and it pourtrayed but the 
elements of spiritual truth. It set before its votaries the 
merest first principles, which were indeed often expounded 
and developed by its prophets. It was “ἃ shadow of things 
to come,” not even a full and vivid picture. Under the 17th 
verse the exposition will be more fully given. The party at 
Colosse, who attempted to seduce, presented some elements of 
the Mosaic ritual and worship as a special instrument of 
spiritual elevation and ascetic discipline. ‘They inculcated a 
philosophy, which, whatever might be its mysticism or its 
metaphysical or heathen features, was in essence an adaptation 


᾿ 


a 


᾿ 


140 COLOSSIANS II. 8. 


of Judaism, not as found in the Mosaic writings, but as over- 
laid and disfigured by a mass of accumulated traditions. 

Kat οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν --- “And not after Christ.” That 
philosophy was not according to Christ. It is a needless 
dilution of the sense, on the part of Erasmus and Réell, &e., 
to render— not according to the doctrine of Christ.” It was 
not based upon Christ, but was in contrariety to His person 
and work. It depreciated Him, and undervalued His media- 
tion. But true Christian science has Him for its centre, and 
Him for its object. It bows to His authority, and ever seeks to 
exalt Him. Any new doctrine may be safely tested by the 
estimation in which it holds Christ; for all that is false and 
dangerous in speculation, invariably strives to lower His rank 
and official dignity, and therefore is neither in source, spirit, 
substance, nor tendency, according to Him.’ And they were 
to be on their guard against such dangerous deceptions, which 
were not according to Christ. Though the apostle says— 
‘“‘not after Christ ”—it must not be inferred that the errorist or 
errorists made no profession of Christianity, or were openly 
hostile to it. Had this been the case, their non-Christian 
character would have been boldly and distinctly pointed out 
by the apostle. They seem to have been disciples in name. 
Nor did they come like mere Judaizers and make an open 
assault, or insist in plain terms that Christian Gentiles should 
be circumcised and keep the law. Then they would have 
been confronted like the Judaizers in Galatia. But they were 
more insidious in their attack—boasted the possession of an 
inner and a higher knowledge, and preached an ideal system 
of specious pretensions, and made up apparently of Judaism 
and Gnosticism,—or Judaism deeply imbued with that mysti- 


| cism which distinguished the Essenes, and that kind of 
\ theosophy which is found in Philo.’ 


1 “My design all alongst this discourse, butts at this one principle, that specula- 
tions in religion are not so necessary, and are more dangerous than sincere practice. 
It is in religion as in heraldry, the simpler the bearing be, it is so much the purer and 
ancienter.”—Sir George Mackenzie’s Religio Stoici, p. 141, Edinburgh, 1665. 

2 See also Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme, &c., Paris, 1828; Burton, 
An Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Works, vol. iii.; the Bampton 
Lecture for 1829. 

3 Davidson, Introduction, vol. ii. p. 411. 


COLOSSIANS II. 9. 141 


(Ver. 9.) “Ore ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότη- 
τος σωματικῶς. ‘This is an irresistible argument. Any system 
not after Christ must be human and wrone—‘“ for in Him 
dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The noun 
πλήρωμα, has been fully explained under Ephes. i. 23. The 
substantive θεότης is an abstract term, like Deity, in which 
God is viewed in essence rather than personality. The word 
is quite different in meaning from θείοτης, Rom. 1. 20—a term 
which describes quality rather than being. The words differ 
as divinitas and deitas— divineness and Deity; or, as the 
Germans express it—(rottlichkeit and Gottheit. The Syriac 
uses the expressive term JLo). The fulness of the 
Godhead, is a fulness filled up by it—is that Godhead in 
all its native attributes and prerogatives. And it is the whole 
fulness—not one cycle of Divine perfections—a single cluster 
of Divine properties — not a_partial possession - ‘sled 
glories—nor a handful of meted and fractional resources; but | 
the entire assemblage of all in existence and character that 
constitutes the ae What He is, and as He is, in being, i 
mode, and manifestation, dwells in Christ. See under i. 15. 
One blushes to mention the Socinian misinterpretation, which 
so reduces this sublime statement as to make it signify merely, 
that the whole will of God was manifested by Him—an attempt 
which Calovius well names detorsio mera. Nor are we less 
confounded with the capricious and baseless exposition of 
Heinrichs, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schleusner, Gerhard, and 
Junker, that πλήρωμα can mean the church gathered without 
distinction from all nations, and that the apostle intends to 
say—that the whole church has its existence, well-being, or 
instruction in Christ. Nor is the singularly ungrammatical exe- 
gesis of some early expositors less wonderful—that “in Him” 
means in the church, and that in this church dwells the fulness 
of the Godhead. Bihr ably refutes the view of Noesselt, which 
though a little more ingenious than the Socinian hypothesis, 
does not essentially differ from it in result. The sense natu- 
rally suggested by the terms is the correct one. Nor are we 
to search for any recondite meaning, as if πλήρωμα must be 
taken in a Gnostic sense; or, as if in the verb κατοικεῖ, there 
were a necessary allusion to the so-named Shechinah—in which 


142 COLOSSIANS II. 9. 


dwelt the Divinity. Whatever be the polemical reference, the 
ordinary meaning of the verb cannot be set aside, as denoting 
actual and prolonged habitation. 

The mode of this mysterious inhabitation is declared to be 
σωματικῶς ---“ in a bodily form,” for such is the first and plain 
meaning of the adverb. Other and vaguer ideas have been 
attached to it. It is a necessary result of the interpretation 
which takes πλήρωμα to signify the church, that it must 
regard σωματικῶς as intense and hyperbolical, and therefore 
we have the dilution of a quasi. The church dwells in Christ, 
as if in a bodily form—as if it formed His body. But— 

1. The least plausible hypothesis is that of Capellus and 
Heuman, who look upon the term as equivalent to ὅλως, and 
as signifying “altogether.” Such a translation makes the 
clause tautological, for πᾶν is already employed, and besides 
it cannot be borne out by any legitimate examples. Why 
resort to a rare and technical use of the word, as peculiar as 
in our familiar phrase, a body of divinity, meaning a full course 
of theological instruction? 

2. Others, again, under the influence of the previous con- 
trast between the law and the gospel, imagine an antithesis in 
the word, as if it stood in antagonism to τυπικῶς. There was a 
symbolical residence in the temple, but an actual one in Christ 
Jesus. The polemical Augustine first broached the idea. 
Non ideo corporaliter quia corporeus est Deus, sed aut verbo 
translato usus est, tanquam in templo manufacto non corporaliter, 
sed umbratilitor habitaverit, id est, praefigurantibus signis, nam 
illas omnes observationes umbras futurorum vocat, etiam tpso 
translato vocabulo, . . . . aut certe corporaliter dictum est, quia 
et in Christi corpore, quod assumpsit ex virgine, tanquam in 
templo habitat Deus.' Augustine has been followed by 
Vatablus, a-Lapide, Grotius, Glassius, Hackspann, Vitringa, 
Réell, Crellius, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Michaelis, Bengel, and 
Bretschneider. But there is no such implied contrast in this 
verse as between σῶμα and oxfa in verse 17, and there is 
therefore no just ground of departure from the common and 
absolute signification. Christ is held up as the grand centre 


1 Ep. 187, vol. ii. p. 1036, ed. Ben. Paris, 1836. 


COLOSSIANS II. 9. 143 


and source of true philosophy, and the reason is that Godhead 
was incarnate in Hin, and that therefore His claims are para- 
mount, both in person and function. He is not only the 
Wonder of wonders in Himself, but creation and redemption 
—the two prime books of study—trace themselves to Him 
as their one author. 

3. A large number of critics give to σωματικῶς the meaning 
of essentialiter, that is, the Godhead dwells in Christ really, or 
in substance—ovowde¢. Names of high authority are leagued 
in favour of this interpretation. Theophylact and Cicumenius, 
and Isidore the Pelusiot, among the Fathers; Calvin, Beza, 
and Melancthon, among the reformers; with Steiger, Huther, 
Olshausen, and Usteri,! among the more recent expositors. 
The ground of this interpretation lies again in a supposed 
polemical contrast, which certainly does not appear in the 
context. Melancthon says—est oppositum inhabitationi separ- 
abili ut habitat Deus in sanctis, that is, the union of Divinity 
with Christ is a personal union—not like the influential in- 
dwelling of God in a believing heart. Huther supposes such 
a contrast as this, that the Deity did not dwell in Christ as it 
dwelt in the old prophets who preceded Him. Olshausen 
again gives prominence to a Gnostic antagonism, as if the 
apostle meant to distinguish between a merely temporary 
influence of a higher spirit, and a permanent union of the 
Godhead—an idea as naturally brought out by giving to the 
adverb its usual signification. To fall back for defence upon 
any uses of the Hebrew word pxy, is all but to surrender the 
cause. The Hebrew noun does signify zpse, but never in con- 
nection with persons—de rebus tantummodo, as Gesenius, sub 
voce, remarks. The noun σῶμα does signify person in the 
New Testament, though Bihr denies it. Davenant says— 
“the Hebrew put souls for persons, and the Greek put 
bodies ;” but the instances of the latter usage adduced by him 
will not bear him out; for in them there is usually distinct 
reference to the corporeal part of the person. In those 
instances in the New Testament in which σῶμα appear to 
signify person, it is not only followed with a genitive of 


1 Lehrb. ν. 234. See also Hammond, in Joc. 


144 COLOSSIANS II. 9. 


person, but there is always some special reason why the term 
should be so employed—some implied contrast, some con- 
textual point, or some tacit reference to the body or external 
person. ‘Thus, among the classics, it is appropriately used of 
soldiers and slaves, whose bodies are in special request. As 
in the New Testament it is used in connection with the eye, 
Matt. vi. 22; with marriage—a union characterized as “ one 
flesh,” Ephes. v. 28; with the idea of death, Philip. 1. 20; and 
the notion of a living sacrifice, in which the dead bodies of 
victims were offered, Rom. xii. 1. Indeed, in Homeric usage 
σῶμα always denotes a corpse. So that, absolutely, the noun 
does not signify person; and such a sense is never given to 
the cognate adjective or adverb. ‘This exegesis seems to have 
arisen from an attempt to define by it the nature of that union 
which subsisted between Divinity and humanity, in the person 
of Christ. 

4. The last and best interpretation is that which takes 
σωματικῶς in its literal and only meaning — in a bodily 
shape, and not as Theodoret paraphrases — ὡς ἐν σώματι. 
Such is also the view of Calovius, Estius, Storr, De Wette, 
Biihr, Bohmer, and Meyer. Yet Steiger calls it—abgeschmackt 
—insipid, and Olshausen regards it as tautological, because 
the words “in Him” occur in the same clause. But the 
words “in Him” are the general reference, and the adverb 
specifies the mode in which He possessed the Divine fulness. 
The fulness of the Godhead was embodied in Him, or dwelt 
in Him—in no invisible shape, and by no unappreciable con- 
tact. It assumed a bodily form. It abode in Him as a man. 
It made its residence the humanity of Jesus. Divinity was 
incarnated in Christ. It shrunk not from taking upon it 
our nature, and realizing the prophetic title — ‘“ Immanuel, 
God with us.” The same idea is contained Johni. 14—“ the 
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Logos, yet 
unfleshed, was God, and was with God, Divine and yet distinct 
from the Father; but the fulness of Godhead was only spiritually 
within Him. Now, it has made its abode in his humanity with- 
out consuming it or deifying it, or changing any of its essential 
properties. It hungered and it ate, it thirsted and it drank, it 
grieved and it wept, it watched and prayed, it wearied itself 


COLOSSIANS II. 9. 145 


and it lay down, it was exhausted and it slept, it bled and it 
died. That body so filled and honoured was no phantom, as 
many even in the apostolic age imagined, for it had “flesh and 
bones,” and, after its resurrection, it bore the scar of its recent 
wounds. It was, therefore, no vehicle which Divinity assumed 
by any singular process, but in the same way as the children 
become “partakers of flesh and blood,” so did Christ partake of 
_ them. He was born as children are born, and the infant was 
wrapt “in swaddling bands.” He was nursed as children are 
nursed, for “ butter and honey should he eat.” His young 
soul grew in wisdom as His physical frame grew in stature. 
It was easily seen that Godhead dwelt in that humanity, for 
ghmpses of its glory flashed again and again through its 
earthly covering. The radiance was vailed, but never entirely 
eclipsed. His disciples ‘‘beheld His glory, the glory indeed of 
the only begotten of the Father.” Peter felt impressed by it, 
and urged his own sinfulness as the reason why intercourse 
should be suspended; while Thomas, under the impulse of 
wonder and faith, cried out—‘“ My Lord, and my God.” 
Jesus prayed for others, and bade others pray on their own 
behalf; but He never solicited their prayers for Himself. 
When suppliants bowed the knee to Him, He never said— 
“See thou do it ποὺ; never thought it to be idolatry on 
their part to offer Him homage, or felt it to be “robbery” on 
His part to accept it. His second coming is “the glorious 
appearing of the great God.” At His baptism and transfigura- 
tion, the voice from the excellent glory hailed Him as God’s 
beloved Son. He detected the inmost thoughts and enmities 
of the multitude, for he possessed a species of intuition 
which lies far above humanity. “He knew what was in man.” 
“The wind bloweth where it listeth,” but it listened to Him; 
and He who trod upon the waves of the Sea of Galilee, made 
them a path which God marks as His own. He wrought miracles 
at discretion, and wielded at pleasure the prerogative of forgiv- 
ing sins. He assumed a co-ordinate power with the Father, and 
claimed with Him an equal right of dispensing with those obliga- 
tions of the sabbatic law, which had been enacted for men by 
Divine authority. The most ordinary eye discovered something 


extraordinary about Him. The crowd that heard Him 5816 --. 
Li 


146 COLOSSIANS II. 10. 


ΚΗ speaketh as one having authority ;” for he spoke im the tones 
of conscious Divinity. ‘We have seen strange things to-day,” 
shouted the spectators; and no wonder, those strange things 
were the characteristic acts of the strangest of Beings—the 
only Being who is God-man. A perfection, not of earth, be- 
longed to His nature; for ‘the prince of this world,” who finds 
so much to work upon in common humanity, could find 
nothing in Him; and the demons, whose appetite for evil leads 
them ever to detect it and vaunt over it, acknowledged Him 
to be “the Holy One of God.” Referring to His death as 
the destruction of a temple, He asserted Himself able in three 
days to raise it again—a task that could be achieved only by 
the Divine Creator and Life-giver. While He walked on 
earth, He spoke of Himself as one “who is in heaven.” 
Born centuries after Abraham, He yet pre-existed the great 
father of His nation. Lowly and humble—the son of Mary, 
He was the Image of the invisible God; and so close was His 
likeness to Him who sent Him, that He said—‘“ He who hath 
seen me, hath seen the Father.” And the apostle uses the 
present tense—the Divine fulness still “dwells” in Him. It 
was no temporary union, but an abiding possession. His 
glorious body has in it the same fulness of the Godhead, as 
had the body of His humiliation. The mode of inhabitation 
the apostle does not specify. What may be inferred is, that 
the union is’a personal union of His natures—not a simple 
concord of will, so that there are two persons; nor such 
an absorption of the one element into the other, that there 
is only one nature. We know not whether Docetic views 
prevailed at that early period in the Colossian church, but it 
is certain that Christ was undervalued and His person mis- 
understood, in the false philosophy. ‘Therefore, the apostle af- 
firms, in this brief but weighty clause, the great mystery of His 
mediatorial nature—the personal union in Him of Divinity 
and manhood. Any philosophy not “after Christ,” must be 
earthly and delusive. It has missed the central truth —is 
amused with the stars, but forgetful of the sun. ‘“ For in Him 
dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;” and, with 
singular congruity, the apostle adds— 

(Ver. 10.) Καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι---- And ye are 


COLOSSIANS II. 10. 147 


made full in Him.” The clause is still in continuation of the 
warning, and crowns the argument. It is in entire opposition 
to the usus loquendi of the New Testament, on the part of 
Grotius, Bos, and Heumann, to make ἐστέ an imperative, for 
it emphasizes their present state. The phrase ἐν αὐτῷ has 
a meaning found with peculiar frequency—in Him—in union 
with Him ; and it is wrong in Erasmus to render it—“ by, or 
by means of Him.” The participle πεπληρωμένοι is evidently 
used with a reference to the πλήρωμα of the preceding verse 
—ye are filled out of Christ’s fulness, or are full in His fulness. 
Opinions on the sense or reference of the participle are 
modified by the view entertained of the meaning of the pre- 
ceding verse. Schoettgen narrows the meaning by far too 
much, and gives but one aspect of the sense, when he ren- 
ders—per istum estis perfecti edocti; for though the apostle 
has been referring to instruction, yet far more is here implied. 
The exegesis of Grotius is rather an inference—illo contenti 
estote; for if they were complete in Jesus, it followed that 
they needed no supplemental endowments from any other 
quarter. The meaning of the clause is much the same as that 
found in Ephes. iii. 19, to the exposition of which the reader 
may turn. Meyer says that nothing is to be supplied after 
πεέπληρ. neither τῆς θεότητος with Theophylact, nor τοῦ 
πληρώματος τῆς θεότητος with De Wette. But the question 
recurs, of what elements is this fulness composed? or, if the 
participle be rendered “ perfect” —‘“ ye are perfect in Him,” 
of what elements is this perfection made up? The clause 
bears a very close connection to the foregoing verse, and to 
the phrase—‘“ all the fulness of the Godhead.” It is because 
that fulness dwells in Christ that they are filled up in Him. 
Being in Him, they are brought into contact with what is in 
Him; and that fulness of God contains a life whose pulsations \ 
create a responsive throbbing within them. There is in Christ — 
complete provision, and what is so furnished is pledged to be 
conferred. ‘There needs, therefore, be no want, and no cast- 
ing about for any other source of supply. Believers have 
actual and present completeness of provided blessing, and 
there is the guaranteed completeness of prospective gifts. 
“Ye ARE complete in Him,” for the scriptural view of Christ's 


----- 


148 COLOSSIANS II. 10. 


person meets the deepest necessities of our spiritual nature. 
“What does it mean?” asks Chrysostom, “that you have 
nothing less than Him”—7i οὖν ἐστιν; ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔλαττον 
ἔχετε αὐτοῦ. The apostle adds another and striking clause— 
Ὅς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας ---““ Who is 
the head of all principality and power.” On the authority of 
B, Ὁ, E, F, G, Lachmann reads 6, but ὅς is retained on the 
authority of A, C, J, K, and that of the Greek Fathers. Lach- 
mann’s choice is vindicated by Steiger and Béhmer, though 
it appears to have sprung from a grammatical fondness for 
πλήρωμα as the principal preceding noun. If this reading be 
adopted, the foregoing clause must be placed in a parenthesis. 
“In Him, and that bodily, dwells all the Godhead’s fulness, 
. . which is the Head of all principalities and powers.” The 
authorities are nearly balanced, but the reading 6¢ is most 
in analogy with the apostle’s style of thought and expression. 
Besides, with the reading 6, the words ἐν « in verse 11 must 
refer also to πλήρωμα, and no tolerable sense could be extracted 
from such a connection. The terms ἀρχή and ἐξουσία are ab- 
stract ones, having reference to celestial dignities, and to such 
as were unfallen, ‘The relative, as ini. 18, may be rendered 
—‘“as being He who is;” or, perhaps, “‘inasmuch as He is.” 


Jelf, ὃ 836, 3. The Head of principalities and powers. Ephes. 


, 1.21. There is no exception; the entire hierarchy, even its 


re POLST em 


mightiest and: noblest chieftains and dignities, own submission 
to Christ, and form a portion of His spiritual dominions. 1. 10. 
There was some special reason why he intimates Christ’s head- 


' ship not generally over the church or the universe, but specially 


over the angelic hosts. If we can rely on accounts of the teach- 
ing ascribed to Simon Magus, we might find in them an illustra- 
tion of the apostle’s statement. Epiphanius relates, that Simon 
Magus invented names of principalities and powers, and insisted 
that the learning of such names was essential to salvation. Similar 
bizarrerie is ascribed to Cerinthus. See Whitby, in loc. What- 


' ever be its source, there is no doubt that the apostle alludes 


to some prevalent error—which interposed angels, in some 
sense, as mediators—and so far derogated from the personal 
glory and saving merit of Christ. That theosophy which was 
invading them seems to have dealt largely in idle and delusive 


COLOSSIANS II. 11. 149 


speculation on the rank and office of angels—-assigning to 
them provinces of operation which belong to the Son of God 
—looking to them as guardians or saviours, and forgetting that 
they are but His servants, executing His commission and 
doing Him homage. Why rely upon the courtiers, when 
access may be had at once to the King? why be taken up with 
our fellow-servants, who are only stewards of limited resources, 
when the Master has not only the fulness of Divinity, but has 
it in a human shape—has the heart of a brother to love you, 
and the arm of a God to protect and bless you? Alas! that 
saints so-called have taken the usurped place of principalities 
and powers in the Church of Rome. 

If they were complete in Christ, they had no need to go 
beyond. Christ, and to resort to any ceremonies imposed upon 
them by the Judaizers. They had everything which it was 
alleged they wanted, and everything already in Christ. The 
heretical preceptors had enjoined upon them the rite of cir- 
cumcision, but the apostle shows that it would be really a 
superfluous ceremony, since they had already experienced a 
nobler circumcision than that of the knife—for it was executed 
by no material hand. They were, in short, the “ true circum- 
cision ”—for the apostle proceeds— 

(Ver. 11.) Ev ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ axeporoujtw—* In 
whom, too, ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made 
with hands.” There is no need to suppose, with Olshausen, 
that in these words there is expressed an ideal unity of all His 
people in Christ in His death and resurrection. Though such an 
idea may be found in other parts of Scripture, it cannot be found 
here—save in the exercise of a refined ingenuity. For, first, 
the formula ἐν ᾧ has its usual significance—union with Him 
—union created by the Spirit, and effected by faith; and, 
secondly, the blessing described in the verse had been already 
enjoyed, for they were and had been believers in Him in 
whom they are complete. Through their living union with 
Christ, they had enjoyed the privilege, and were enjoying the 
results of a spiritual circumcision. Why then should they 
suffer the incision of a sharp flint or a glittermg knife—in 
itself, at best, but a sign—when they had already experienced 
the blessing of a circumcision that drew no blood, and gave 


150 COLOSSIANS IIL. 11. 


no pain—a circumcision ‘not made with hands?” The mean- 
ing of the adjective ἀχειροποίητος is very apparent. Mark 
xiv. 58, and 2 Cor. v. 1. The circumcision made without 
hands is plainly opposed to that which is made with hands— 
χειροποίητος. [Ephes. 11. 11.] This idea of a spiritual cir- 
cumcision was no novel one, for it occurs in the Old Testament 
in different forms.'| When Israel was yet in the wilderness, 
the Divine command was given—‘“ Circumcise the foreskin 
of your heart,” and at the same period the Divine promise 
was made—‘ And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine 
heart and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God 
with all thine heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest 
live.” The prophet Jeremiah repeats the injunction—‘ Cir- 
cumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins 
of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.” 
He also describes a part of the population thus—“ Behold, 
their ear is uncircumcised;” nay, he declares that the whole 
house of Israel are “uncircumcised in the heart.” Ezekiel speaks 
of men “uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh.” 
Stephen, in his address, used this ancient phraseology, and 
calls his audience “ uncircumcised in hearts and ears.”” The 
apostle Paul im other places has similar ideas and language.® 
Schoettgen has adduced like quotations from the Rabbis, 
and Philo, as is his wont, spiritualizes the ordinance *— as 
ἡδονῶν ἐκτομήν ; παθῶν πάντων ἐκτομήν. So that the kind 
of circumcision referred to was easily understood, and could 
not be misinterpreted. It was besides an invaluable blessing, 
for it lay— 

Ἔν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός--“' In the putting 
off of the body of the flesh.” The noun ἀπέκδυσις occurs only 
here—the verb is found in the 15th verse. The MSS. A, B, 
C, θ᾽, E’, F, G, &e., omit the words τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, found in 
the Received Text. Flesh is corrupted humanity, Rom. vu. 
23; Gal v. 16. [Ephes. 11. 2.] We cannot take σῶμα im 
any other than its usual signification, though Calvin, Grotius, 
Zanchius, Crocius, Bibr, and Steiger, take it in the sense of 


1 Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6; Jer. iv. 4; vi. 10; ix, 26; Ezek. xliv. 7. 
2 Acts vii. 51. 3 Rom. ii. 29. 


* De Migrat. Abr. Oper. vol. iii. p. 4584, ὅ ἐπεκδύσει erroneously in Tischendorf. 


COLOSSIANS IT. 11. 151 


totality or mass. See under verse 9. But the spirit of this 
exegesis is plainly implied. It is in harmony with the idea of 
circumcision, that the peculiar phrase—“ body of the flesh,” 
is used; and the contrast seems to be this, that in the manual 
circumcision only a portion of one member of the material 
body was cut off, but in the spiritual circumcision, the whole 
flesh which is the seat and habitation of sin is cast away and 
laid aside. The entire slough which encircles the spirit and 
enslaves it is rolled off, newness of life is felt, and the believer 
walks no longer after the flesh, is no longer carnal, or does its 
deeds. As Meyer well says, ‘‘ He who is so circumcised is no 
more ἐν τῇ σαρκί, as heretofore, when concupiscence ἐνηργεῖτο 
ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ; he is no longer σάρκινος, πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν, and walks no longer κατὰ σάρκα, but in newness of 
spirit.” It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not 
different from regeneration, or the putting off the old man 
and putting on the new man. The apostle adds a further 
explanation of this marvellous change, when he says— 

Ἔν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ---- “In the circumcision of 
Christ.” Some have regarded the genitive as that of agent, 
as if the apostle meant—the circumcision which Christ per- 
forms. Such is the virtual view of Theophylact, when he 
says of Christ —éAov ἄνθρωπον περιτέμνει. Schoettgen, 
again, regards the phrase as an allusion to the personal 
circumcision of Jesus, as if that sufficed for all His people. 
Neither view is in harmony with the language and context. 
The circumcision of Christ is that circumcision which be- 
longs to Him, in contradistinction to that which belonged 
to Moses or to the law. The spiritual circumcision is a 
blessing which specially belongs to Christ—is of His pro- 
viding, and is to be enjoyed only im fellowship with Him. 
That of Moses was made with hands, and was a seal of the 
Abrahamic or national covenant—that of Christ is no chirur- 
gical process, but is spiritual and effectual in its nature. The 
mark in the foreskin was the token of being a Jew, but the 
off-thrown body of the flesh was the index of one’s being a 
Christian. Though the scar of circumcision might attest a 
nationality, it was no certificate of personal character—“ all 
are not Israel who are of Israel ;” but, wherever “the flesh” 


152 COLOSSIANS II. 12. 


was parted with, there was the guarantee of individual purity 
and progress. The charter of Canaan was limited to the 
manual circumcision, but the “ true circumcision” are thereby 
infefted in a heavenly inheritance. The Hebrew statute was 
for the man-child eight days old, but the Christian privilege 


_has no distinction of age, or sex, or nation; for it belongs to 


every one in Christ. And it was, and is, a chief blessing—the 


᾿ death of sinful principle and the infusion of a higher life—the 
_ possession of a new nature, which has Christ for its source, 


ay, and Christ for its pattern. Thus the flesh is thrown off, and 
the spirit assumes the predominance, with its quickened sus- 
| ceptibilities, its healthful activities, and its intense aspirations 
}—thinking, feeling, and acting, in harmony with its sphere 


/and-destiny. And if such a collection of spiritual blessings 


ἢ 


has been received, why be subjected to a legal ceremony 
which could be at best but a faint type of them? Surely if 
they had received the thing signified, they need not now 
degrade themselves by submitting to a sign, which was in 
itself only a painful and bloody symbol of the Hebrew nation- 
ality and covenant. For a new sign has been appointed— 
(Ver. 12.) Συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι--- Having 
been buried with Him in baptism.” ‘The state described in 
this past participle precedes or is coincident with the action 
of the verb περιετμήθητε. “Having been buried, they were 
circumcised.” The burial and the circumcision only differ in 
form and circumstance. The circumcision was seen to be 
effected when the burial was completed. Burial implies a 
previous death; and what is that death, but the off-casting of 
the body of the flesh? The reality of death is evinced by burial, 
for this body of sin which once lived with us is slain and 
sepulchred. This point of burial they had reached—when 
they were baptized—for then they personally professed a faith 
which implied the death of sin within them. Why then does 
the apostle use the figure of a burial? for the burial is as 
really without hands as is the circumcision—since no knife 
was employed at the one, and no bier or shroud was deposited 
in the other. The apostle employs the figure, first, to show | 
the reality of the death which the old man had undergone; 
and, secondly, to connect the process by harmony of symbol 


COLOSSIANS II. 12. 153 


or parallel with the resurrection of Christ, which was at once 
a sign and pledge of the resuscitation. Those two ideas, the ex- 
cision of the body of the flesh, which is equivalent to its death, 
and the raising of Christ as the typal life and the Lifegiver, 
seem to have suggested to the apostle the notion of an inter- 
vening process—a burial with Christ. When you were baptized, 
you were so placed as if you had been laid with Christ in His 
tomb—‘“ all old things passed away ;” you were in respect to 
the old man what the dead Christ was in respect to His first 
physical life—dead to it and done with it. Only, He died for 
sin, and you die to it; He died for it nm His body, while you 
die to it in your souls. But this burial is not a final state, it is 
simply one of transition—‘“ In whom also ye are raised by faith.” 

The reference is plainly to the ordinance of baptism, and 
to its spiritual meaning. We scarcely suppose that there is 
any reference to the mode of it; for whatever may be other- 
wise said in favour of immersion, it is plain that here the 
burial is wholly ideal—not a scenic and visible descent into 
an earthy or a watery tomb, but of such a nature entirely as 
the circumcision with which it is identified, and the resurrec- 
tion which invariably succeeds it. Thus, in the apostolic 
conception, men may be buried in baptism without being sub- 
merged in water, in the same way as they may be circum- 
cised without the spilling of blood. The entire statement is 
spiritual in its nature—the death, the burial, and the resurrec- 
tion; the circumcision, and the off-putting of the body of the 
flesh. The apostle looks on circumcision and baptism as being 
closely connected—the spiritual blessmg symbolized by both 
bemg of a similar nature; though, probably, it would be 
straining this connection to allege it as a proof that baptism 
has been in all points ordained for the church in room of 
circumcision. 

It is not within our province to enter on the question whether 
apostolical baptism was by immersion, sprinkling, or affusion. 
What we only say is, granting that immersion had been the 
early and authorized form of baptism, we are not prepared to 
admit of any allusion to that form in the clause before us. It 
does not advance the opposite argument to say, that the 
immersion of a believer resembles a burial. This has been a 


154 COLOSSIANS II. 12. 


favourite idea from very early times. And not only so, but 
trine immersion was often practised —one reason assigned 
being a reference to the Trinity, but another argument being 
that it was a symbolic allusion to the three days — τὴν 
τριήμερον---οἵ Christ’s abode in the tomb.’ Still, to many 
minds there is manifest incongruity in the symbol. Where, in 
Scripture, is water the symbol of the world of death, or of the 
grave? Itis always the means of washing—the instrument 
of purification. At what point of baptism is death symbol- 
ized—for it precedes burial? Means of imitating the death 
and resurrection of Jesus could be easily devised—for they 
were physical facts that could with no difficulty be pictured 
out. But a believer’s death and resurrection with Christ are 
spiritual events; and the same process cannot surely be the 
emblem of both classes of truths — cannot be at the same 
time the figure of a fact, and the figure of a figure. Death, 
burial, and resurrection, are truths not pourtrayed by gesture 
and position in baptism, but only recognized in it—not acted 
out, or represented in visible form, but only experienced and 
professed. Believers are buried in baptism, but even in im- 
mersion they do not go through a process having any resem- 
blance to the burial and resurrection of Christ. The Colos- 
sians did not personate death and burial in baptism any more 
than they imitated the circumcision of Moses. In a similar 
sense, though without reference to any sacramental institute, 
believers are crucified with Christ, though no nail pierce their 
hands; they are enthroned with Him, while they wear no 
symbcl of royalty; and they have an unction from the Holy 
One, but no material oil is poured upon their heads. 

Ἔν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε---““ 1 whom too ye were raised 
together.” Beza, and after him Calixtus, Suicer, Steiger, Béh- 
mer, De Wette, and Baumgarten-Crusius, refer the relative to 
βαπτίσματι. But the laneuage would, in such a case, be 
inapt, as “out of baptism” would appear to be the natural 
expression. There appears to be no formal resemblance 
between baptism and burial in the apostle’s mind, and so he 


' Gregor. Nyss. Opera, vol. iii. p. 872. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. ii. 4. Joannes 
Damas. Expositio fidei Ortho. 10. The works of Vossius, Gale, Wall, Carson, Wilson, 
Beecher, and Halley, may aiso be referred to. 


COLOSSIANS II. 12. 155 


says not ἐξ ov, but simply ἐν g—“ in whom,” that is, in Christ. 
Justinian and Davenant, Meyer and Huther, thus refer the 
pronoun—* With Him” they are buried—‘in Him” they rise 
again; for union with Him is the one efficacious principle. 
The verb is explained and its meaning defended under Ephes. 
ii. 6. It is not an ideal or potential spiritual resurrection 
secured for them, but one now and actually enjoyed by believers. 
The vivification of the soul involves in it, as a necessary result, 
the resurrection of the body—a result essential to the develop- 
ment of the new life in its highest sphere; but it is wrong in 
Theophylact to give this aorist verb a future meaning, or 
rather to mix up the two significations. While union with 
Christ is the bond of security, the instrumental cause is next 
described— 

Διὰ τῆς πίστεως---“ By the faith.” A similar use of ἐν and διά 
is found in Ephes. i. 7, each preposition retaining its distinctive 
signification. It is faith which achieves this spiritual resurrec- 
tion—belief in the Divine testimony is the vehicle which the 
Divine resurrectionary power employs. The apostle, Ephes. 
i. 19, 20, prays that the Ephesians might know “ what is the 
exceeding greatness of God’s power to usward who believe,” 
and the kind of power referred to is, as here, that which 
raised Christ from the dead, and which also quickens and 
raises up believers who had been “dead in trespasses and 
sins.” Thus it is faith— 

Tie ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν 
—“Of the operation of God who raised Him from the 
dead.” Many interpreters take the genitive as that of 
agency— faith inwrought by God.” Such is the view of 
Flacius, Calixtus, the older interpreters, Luther, Melancthon, 
as also of Storr, Flatt, Bengel, Bihr, Béhmer, De Wette, 
Huther, Olshausen, and Conybeare. Luther renders—den Gott 
wirket; and Melancthon draws the lesson—non igitur potest 
suis viribus ratio fidem in nobis efficere. Whatever truth may 
be in this doctrine, and whatever may be the proof of it m 
other parts of Scripture, it is not the doctrine which the 
apostle here delivers. For according to usage in such a case, 
the genitive is that of object. So with regard to Θεοῦ, Mark 
xi. 22: Ὀνόματος, Acts iti. 16: Ἰησοῦ X. &e. Rom. ii. 22; 


156 COLOSSIANS II. 12. 


Gal. ii. 16,20; iti. 22; Ephes. 11.12; Philip. m. 9; Jas. τ: 
1; Rev. it. 13: EvayyeAfov, Philip. 1. 27: ᾿Αληθείας, 2 
Thess. 11. 13. The genitive thus denotes the object of faith, 
or the thing believed. Such is the view of the mass of 
interpreters, of the Greek Fathers, of Calvin and Beza, of 
Grotius and Erasmus, of Meyer, Bloomfield, &c. The object 
of this vivifying faith is the Divine power which raised up 
Christ from the dead. The construction which the apostle 
employs in Ephes. 1. 19—ete ἡμᾶς τούς πιστεύοντας κατὰ τὴν 
ἐνέργειαν k-T-a, IS no argument against this view, for, as we 
have there said, κατά does not point out the source of faith, 
but turns attention to the model after which the Divine power 
operates in quickening the spiritually dead. A description 
of the Divine power, as showing itself in the resurrection of 
Christ, more naturally allies itself with the idea of spiritual 
resuscitation, which it resembles, than with that of the pro- 
duction of faith. 

The sinner is raised out of death. United to Christ by the 
Spit, and exercising a belief in God, he is justified and 
obtains legal life—exemption from the penalty of law; and 
he is also sanctified, or is endowed with spiritual life—comes to 
the conscious enjoyment of God’s favour, and the possession of 
His image. This faith has special reference to the Divine 
power in one of its manifestations, the raising of Jesus Christ 
from the dead. Power is evinced most strikingly in a resur- 
rection—the restoration of a dead body to life is the work of 
Omnipotence. Love may pity, but power restores—a power 
which the apostle calls exceeding great and mighty. Ephes. 1. 
19. Faith lays hold on this phasis of omnipotence, and on 
this act of its achievement, because it feels that spiritual 
quickening is at once the result which springs from the one 
and is pledged by the other. The nature of this power and 
its relation to believers have been fully explained under a 
similar passage—Ephes. i. 20. The resurrection of Christ 
proves the acceptance of his atonement on the part of the 
Father, “who raised His Son from the dead, and gave Him 
glory that our faith and hope might be in God.” 10 therefore 
showed that the way of salvation was open, that the majesty 
of the law had been vindicated, and that the blessings of 


COLOSSIANS II. 13. gs 


redemption might therefore be conferred in all their fulness and 
without restraint. Blood had been shed, and might now be 
sprinkled; and the Saviour being glorified, the Spirit might 
now descend. If I believe in that power which raised Jesus 
Christ from the dead, I believe in a power which might 
righteously have crushed me, but is now mercifully wielded to 
save me; which has set its seal on the work of Christ, and will 
now distribute and apply its rich results; and which, having 
exalted the Redeemer, has placed itself under a solemn stipu- 
lation to reward Him with a numerous seed, so that He shall 
“‘see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied.” Thus, 
this power working out the purposes of Divine Love and the 
devices of Infinite Wisdom, stands out so employed as the 
object of saving faith. 

But the apostle now appeals to the Colossian believers. 

(Ver. 13.) Kat ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασιν 
καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκος ὑμῶν συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς 
σὺν αὐτῳ---““ And you, being dead in trespasses and the uncir- 
cumcision of your flesh, you He quickened with Him.” Any 
differences of reading are too trivial to be noted, save that 
which repeats ὑμᾶς on the authority of A, C, J, K. The 
apostle still continues the general thought without any formal 
and specific connection. ‘The connection proposed by Steiger, 
namely, to join the first clause to the participle ἐγείραντος; is 
utterly untenable. It would create tautology, and the repeti- 
tion of ὑμᾶς does not render it necessary. Bernhardy, p. 275. 
We far prefer connecting νεκρούς with the verb συνεζωο- 
ποίησεν. Though we admire the acuteness and general 
soundness of Meyer, yet we wonder how here, and in Ephes. 
ii. 1, he comes to the conclusion that νεκρός refers to physical 
death. For the dead condition was one of reality, though it 
be past. It was not a liability to death; they were not, as he 
phrases it—so gut wie todt—certo morturi, they were mortut. 
Besides, the liability to physical death is not removed by faith 
in Christ. And the quickening and upraising are already 
experienced, they are not blessings to be enjoyed uncounted 
years afterwards. The apostle does not surely say—that 
believers were soon and certainly to die, and that when the 
Saviour came again, they should all be summoned out of their 


158 COLOSSIANS II. 13. 


graves to the possession of eternal life. But he appeals to 
present enjoyments already conferred—to a death which had 
bound them, and a life which the Divine energy had infused 
into them. Meyer argues for the ideal possession of life now, 
and its full realization at the second coming. But if such 
ideal possession leave the dreadful reality untouched, it brings 
with it no good. If, instead of ideal possession, he had said 
partial possession, he would have come nearer the truth. For 
the life now enjoyed is, alas, too often faint and languid in its 
pulsations, and the fulness of its strength is a future bestow- 
ment. We therefore take the tenses in their simple signifi- 
cance, and not in any proleptic sense, as even Chrysostom 
takes them, and we regard the preposition ἐν before παραπ- 
τώμασιν, as denoting that condition in which spiritual death 
exists. When Meyer insists that the life to which believers 
are raised is eternal life, and that nothing less can be meant 
by the apostle, he forgets that present spiritual life precedes 
—that glory is only the consummation of grace, and that 
eternal life is but the crown and perfect development of emo- 
tions already felt, occupations already begun, and pleasures 
already experienced. The life implanted now is brought to 
maturity in a sphere where all is congenial to its tastes and 
instincts, its susceptibilities and powers. The Colossians had 
been really and spiritually dead, they were now as really and 
spiritually alive. They had been not only exposed to death on 
account of sin, but had been dead in sin. Now they are not 
simply gifted with the charter of a life yet to be reached, but 
they are actually living in faith and holiness. The nature of 
this death, and its connection with sin; along with the meaning 
of παραπτώμασιν will be found explained in the parallel 
place, Ephes. ii. 1, &c. There is no ground for Olshausen’s 
notion, that the prior clause has a general meaning, and that 
this verse begins a practical application; for the same appeal 
runs throughout, only it may be more pointed and intense in 
the verse before us 

Kai τῇ ἀκρο[δυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν---“ And in the uncir- 
cumcision of your flesh.” The apostle here alludes to their 
Gentile extraction. They wanted in their flesh the seal of the 
Abrahamic covenant. We incline to take the words in their 


COLOSSIANS II. 18. 159 


literal sense. Uncircumcision had, indeed, sometimes a spiritual 
meaning. Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv. 4. Theodoret adopts such a 
sense here—akpo[3.7.capKoc¢ τὴν πονηρίαν ἐκάλεσεν; SO also 
Beza, Grotius, Biihr, Steiger. But such an interpretation rather 
takes up the result, than gives the meaning. Thus, the Gen- 
tiles were uncircumcised, and in consequence, were “aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the 
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God.” 
Their degraded, miserable, idolatrous, and dead state, was the 
effect of their uncircumcision. Calvin says—sed tamen Paulus 
hie logeretur de contumacia cordis humani adversus Deum, 
et natura pravis affectionibus inguinata. But there is no 
occasion to take σάρξ in other than its physical meaning. 
Beza takes the genitive as one of apposition—flesh, which is 
uncircumeision, a thing abominable to God; while others 
render it—praeputium nempe vitiositas. That “uncireumcision” 
and “flesh” are to be taken in their ordinary physical sense, 
is also apparent from the change of person in the last clause. 
Did the term simply signify natural corruption, then the 
apostle himself was once in such a state. But he does not 
feel or say so. On the contrary, he makes the distinction you 
Gentiles were dead in the uncireumcision of your flesh—but 
we, Jew and Gentile alike, are forgiven our trespasses. See 
under next clause. Uncircumcision of the flesh was the 
physical mark of a heathen state, and that heathen state was 
im consequence of this want, and in itself one of degradation, 
impurity and death. The flesh which had not the seal was 
truly corrupted and sinful. It is pressing the clause too 
much to bring out of it a proof of original sin, as is done by 
Zanchius and Bengel; the latter calls it—exquisita appellatio 
peccatt originalis. The false teachers insisted strenuously on 
the necessity of cireumcision—a theory very common in those 
times, for believing Jews were zealous of the law.’ But 
the apostle naturally says—True, ye were uncircumcised; 


1 In a pamphlet named Jsrael’s Ordinances, the late Charlotte Elizabeth, address- 
ing a Jewish convert, Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, rebukes him for not cireum- 
cising his sons—‘‘ Call you what we will, my Lord, you are a Jew—a circumcised 
Jew. My dear Lord, bear with me, while I respectfully and affectionately put once 
more the query—why are not your sons also Jews ?” 


100 COLOSSIANS II. 18. 


-your flesh had not been wounded so as to bear the sign of the 
Divine covenant, but ye have been circumcised, not with a 
manual operation, but with the circumcision of Christ. The 
apostle admits that they were uncircumcised, for they did not 
belong to Israel, but he has already contended that such a cireum- 
cision as that which of old disabled the Shechemites from self- 
defence, and kept the Israelites after they crossed the Jordan 
from commencing the conquest, did not become them, and was 
in their case wholly superfluous, for they had been spiritually 
initiated, and had put off the body of flesh. They had been 
dead in sins—this was their real moral state; dead too in the 
uncircumcision of their flesh, and this was their external and 
heathen condition. Looking at them as men, they were dead 
in sins—looking at them as heathen men, they were dead 
also in the uncircumcision of their flesh. 

Συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν avtrw— You He brought to life 
together with Him.” The nominative is still God—not Christ, 
as Heinrichs would have it. The work of quickening is God’s 
prerogative. This process of life-giving is not simply redemp- 
tion, as De Wette gives it, but rather one special aspect or 
blessing of it. It is used with perfect propriety, for life is the 
blessing appropriate to the dead. Some wonder why συνη- 
γέρθητε should have occurred before it, since the idea of resur- 
rection so naturally follows that of life-giving. But in both 
places the verbs are in harmony with the figure; the apostle, 
in verse 12, speaks of burial, and therefore he employs the 
term resurrection, while here he speaks simply of death, and 
so he places life in correspondence and contrast with it. But 
not only so, there is also a difference of allusion and meaning. 
The burial there is a voluntary renunciation of sin, and off- 
casting of its body—the completing point of the process of 
death to sin; but here it is a death in sin which the apostle 
describes, and out of which the Colossians had been raised by 
the power of God, and through their union with Christ. The 
former is a series of acts in which the believer in the enjoy- 
‘ment of vivifying energy dies unto sin—and puts off the 
flesh. Nay, the more he lives, the more he dies; and in pro- 
portion to the growth and development of life are the extent 
and progress of death. It is a special view of the work of 


COLOSSIANS IL. 18. 161 


sanctification, in which, according to the measure of life to 
God, there is death to sin. But the death described in this 
verse is very different. It is a death which pre-exists life, and 
does not co-exist with it—death in sin—in consequence of its 
fatal reion and power. The one is dying—a conscious state ; 
the other is death—a condition of insensibility and danger. 
In the one, the decay of love to sin may be registered; in the 
other, the mastery of sin is spiritual paralysis and death. The 
nature of this life, and its connection with Christ, are illus- 
trated under Ephes. ii. 5. 

Χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα τὰ TaparTwuara—* Having forgiven 
us all our trespasses.” The reading ἡμῖν is on largely prepon- 
derant authority preferred to the ὑμῖν of the Received Text. 
It is easy to see how ὑμῖν should have been inserted, as ὑμᾶς 
precedes. Nor is it difficult to apprehend why the apostle 
should say “us” instead of “you.” He speaks in one clause 
of a distinctive feature of their past spiritual state—“dead in 
the uncireumcision of your flesh.” That was peculiar to them, 
but death in sin was common both to him and to them, and they 
were now both partakers of the “common salvation.” They 
both had enjoyed forgiveness, and so he says—‘“ having for- 
given us our trespasses.” The aorist participle points to 
forgiveness as something past, and yet preceding the act of 
life-giving. Having forgiven your trespasses, He has quickened 
you. The pardoning and life-giving are scarcely synonymous, 
as some would argue. But this dead state is a guilty state, 
for it is a sinful state, and all sin brings down upon itself the 
Divine displeasure and penalty. Having forgiven them these 
trespasses, which were the source and means of death, He 
brings them out of it. To have given them spiritual life, and 
yet kept them under the penalty of sin, which is legal death, 
would have been a process in which one gift neutralized its 
fellow. The restoration to life is thus the token and result of 
a prior forgiveness. The welcome to the prodigal son was a 
proof that he had been pardoned. The death was one in 
trespasses; and those very trespasses, yea “all” of them, are 
blotted out. The reader is requested to turn to what is said 
under chap. i. 14, and under Ephes.1.7. The life is not, as 


Bohmer imagines, subsequent to this forgiveness, because the 
M 


102 COLOSSIANS II. 14. 


pardon is God’s special act, whereas the life originates in 
man’s co-operation and response. This doctrine is neither 
stated nor implied. Nor is it true. For all life is God’s im- 
mediate gift, from its lowest to its highest forms. No human 
chemistry can produce it beneath us—no suasion nor art can 
create it within us. It is a drop out of the Fountain of Life. 
[Ephes. i. 20.] The apostle proceeds to describe the process 
through which sin was forgiven—or that work which God 
had done, the result of which had been to them life and for- 
giveness. . 

(Ver. 14.) ᾿ξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον ---᾿" Having 
blotted out the handwriting against us.” ‘This verse is so curt 
and compact, that its analysis is not without difficulty. It is 
to be borne in mind that “God” is still the subject, and the 
alteration for which Heinrichs contends cannot for a moment 
be admitted. It will not do to say, with Trollope, that “ the 
apostle, in the ardour of his mind, has not attended to the 
syntax.” What in other places is ascribed to Christ, may be 
here without any impropriety ascribed to God; for Christ's 
suffering and death were of His sanction, and with His 
co-operation. What Christ did, God did by Him. Nor is 
there any argument here, as Biihr insinuates, against the 
satisfactio vicaria. For the satisfaction was offered by Christ, 
and God, having accepted it, did the act described in the 
participle ἐξαλείψας. This verb’ signifies to smear, or 
plaster over, and then it is used to denote the act by which 
a law or deed of obligation is cancelled. It is found with 
another signification Rev. vii. 17; xxi. 4. [0 occurs also 
in Rev. iii. 5; but it is used in a sense not very dif- 
ferent from what it bears in this verse in Acts ii. 19; and 
in Sept. Ps. li. 1, 9; cix. 18; Isaiah xlin. 25. In these places 
it describes the forgiveness of sins, where sin as a debt is 
supposed to be wiped out. The word occurs in Demosthenes” 
-- σκοπεῖσθε ci χρὴ τοῦτον [νόμον] ἐξαλεῖψαι. Its technical 


1 From the root as# that runs through so many of the Indo-Germanic tongues. 
—Benfey, Wurzel-Lex, ii. 122. 

2 Oratores Attici, vol. vi. p. 429, ed. Dobson; also vol. vii. p. 378; viii. p. 15, 
&e. Also Lysias, do. vol. ii p. 182, and p. 588. ’Avaig:iv is more frequently used 
with egoy. Or συγγραφή. 


COLOSSIANS IL. 14. 163 


signification may be gathered from the fact that it stands 
opposed sometimes to ἀναγράφω, and sometimes to ἐγγράφω. 
Liddell and Scott, swb voce. The word, then, means here, to 
expunge. That to which the process of obliteration is applied 
is appropriately termed a handwriting—yeipdypagov, a note 
of hand, a written bond. The term occurs only here in the 
New Testament, but is found in Tobit v. 3; ix. 5; Josephus 
xvi. 14, 2; Polybius, Hxcerpta Legat. 98. Schoettgen and 
Vitringa take it as corresponding to the Hebrew 2 xy, and 
as denoting tabula debiti. But as it signifies a claim of unpaid 
debt, it is therefore also one of punishment, for it was καθ᾽ 
ἡμῶν---““ against us.” 

Both the connection and meaning of τοῖς δόγμασιν have 
been variously taken. That it is to be joined with χειρόγραφον 
we have no manner of doubt. 

1. Some, such as Erasmus, Storr, Flatt, Conybeare, and 
Olshausen, divide the verse thus—ré καθ᾽ ἡμῶν yepdy. τοῖς 
δόγμασιν, ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον iyiv—*The handwriting, which, 
by its ordinances, was against us.” Olshausen admits that, 
with such a construction, the position of the dative is not 
quite natural, and he quotes, along with Winer, Acts 1. 3, 
with which this verse has little analogy. The admittedly 
natural reference of the dative is to χειρόγραφον. 

2. Others attach δόγμασιν to the participle ἐξαλείψας, 
and understand it as describing the means by which the blot- 
ting has been effected. This is the view of the Greek ex- 
positors, of Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Fritzsche,’ and Bohmer. 
The explanation of δόγμασιν, by Theodoret, is ἡ εὐαγγελικὴ 
διδασκαλία; and by Theophylact—rouréom τῇ πίστει. To this 
we answer as we have done to the similar exegesis of Ephes. 
ii. 15, that such a sense given to δόγμα is wholly unbiblical— 
that the declaration of Scripture is, that the handwriting 
against man, which we here understand to be the Mosaic law, 
is abrogated, not by any opposing or modifying enactments, | 
but by the death of Christ. Besides, and more convincingly 
still, we learn from verse 20, that these δόγματα are no longer 
law, for the apostle says—ri δογματίζεσθε; why do ye suffer 


1 Pissert. ii, p. 168. 


164 COLOSSIANS IL. 14. 


such δόγματα to be published or imposed? That is — 
these ordinances are abolished, aad it is now the height of 
folly for others to re-enact them, or for you to observe them. 
The cognate verb of the 20th verse is used with special re- 
ference to the noun of this verse. Whatever these ordinances 
are, they belong to an obsolete economy, and are no longer 
of any obligation, for they were on the handwriting which 
has been wiped out. 

3. Steiger joins δόγμασιν with the participle in this verse. 
He understands the phrase as defining one special phase of 
the handwriting—‘ the handwriting in respect of its ordi- 
nances.” Having blotted out the handwriting in this aspect 
of it, viz., its enactments—plainly implying that in some other 
aspect of it it still stands unrepealed. See on this view, also, 
our comment on Ephes. 11. 15. 

4. Bihr, Huther, and De Wette, understand ἐν δόγμασιν as 
belonging to the whole clause, or rather as explainmg how it 
came that the handwriting was against us. It is because of 
its δόγματα, that is, against us; De Wette renders—durch die 
Satzungen. Calovius and Gieseler supply the participle ὄν--- 
the handwriting which is, or being in its ordinances against us. 

5. But keeping the words in their natural position and con- 
nection with χειρόγραφον, there is variety of view. Calvin, 
Beza, Vitringa, Wolf, Camerarius, and Heinsius, and others, 
eke out the construction from the parallel passage of the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, and would supply at discretion either 
ἐν or cuv'—the handwriting consisting in ordinances, or the 
handwriting along with its ordinances; or, taking the dative 
for the genitive, the handwriting of ordinances. 

6. Meyer takes the dative as that of instrument. The 
δόγματα, in his view, as a constituent portion of the law, are 
that with which: the handwriting is made out. We prefer 
calling the simple dative that of form, that distinctive and 
well known form which the handwriting assumed. In this 
way, the dative is governed by the verbal portion of the noun, ~ 
ypapov—that is, γεγραμμένον. The apostle thus describes 
the handwriting as of a special shape, it assumed the form of 


1 Bishop Middleton on Greek article, im Joc. 


COLOSSIANS 1.14. ~ 165 


ordinances. Had the apostle said ἐν δόγμασιν, the meaning 
would have been—which consisted of ordinances; a meaning, 
which, however, is not materially different from that to which 
we incline, as the form is but the index to the substance. Our 
view also embraces inferentially that given under No. 4. We 
do not say that the handwriting is against us because of its δόγ- 
ματα, but we say more largely, that the handwriting whose form 
of structure was that of δόγματα, is against us. For the meaning 
of δόγματα, see under Ephes. 1.15. This handwriting was 
καθ᾽ ἡμῶν--- directed against us.” After verbs, and in 
phrases implying hostility im word or action, κατά denotes 
against, and points out the direction of the hostility. And to 
explain more fully his meaning, the apostle adds— 

Ὃ ἣν ὑπεναντίον iyuiv—* Which was inimical to us.” It is 
a needless refinement on the part of Beza, Bohmer, and Ro- 
binson, to lay stress upon the ὑπό, as if a covert or underhand 
hostility were implied, or as if it had been unnoticed, or as if, 
as Suicer and Witsius think, it is only in some sense contrary to 
us, because, in another sense, it was a symbol of coming grace. 
None of these meanings are sustained by biblical usage. 
Sept. Gen. xxi. 17; Lev. xxvi. 16; Exod. xxii. 27; Num. 
x. 9; Deut. xxxu. 27; Jos. v.13; in which places it repre- 
sents one or other of the two Hebrew terms—vix, or wx. The 
word is one of those frequent compounds which characterize 
the later Greek, and mark it as a period of decay. Thus we 
do not, like many expositors, take καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, and κατεναντίον 
ἡμῖν, as synonyms, or the latter as explanatory of the former, 
but we regard the two statements as giving two distinct ideas. 
Bengel compares the first to a status belli, and the second to 
ipsa pugna. It has a hostile attitude—it has also in it a deep 
and active antagonism. The question then recurs, what is 
the hostile handwriting ? 

1. A strange exposition is found in ancient times—that the 
handwriting is man’s corporeal frame. Theodoret expressly 
says—iyoupua τοίνυν καὶ τὸ σώμα ἡμῶν καλεΐσθαι χειρόγραφον, 
That is, probably, our body, as represented by Christ’s 
humanity, which was nailed to the cross. This is, to some 
extent, the view of Steiger, given both in his Commentary on 
1 Pet. ἢ. 24, and in this place. In the first comment referred 


166 COLOSSIANS II. 14. 


to, he says— Our sin adhered to Him until it was legally 
destroyed in His body, and His body was in this respect like 
a handwriting over our guilt.” Again, he adds, “ That by the 
appointment of His Son to be our sacrifice, God set out a 
corporeal document of our guilt.” On the verse before us 
he writes:—‘The body of Christ, as a body, is no hand- 
writing ; but it is that body, destined to be a sin-offering, 
which is at once a document exhibiting our guilt, and repre- 
senting the law, in so far as the latter serves the purpose of an 
indictment.” The image, however, is not very distinct, and 
the sacrificial body of the Lord was rather a witness of our sin, 
than a handwriting against us. But the idea is, that some- 
thing different from Christ, and yet closely associated with 
Him, was obliterated in His death. Steiger’s notion is evi- 
dently based upon a literal interpretation of the last clause of 
the verse, yet it 1s wholly out of harmony with the entire 
phraseology. And in what sense does a body resemble a 
handwriting ? or how could it be hostile to us? or how has it 
been taken out of the way? 

2. An opinion as ancient as the preceding supposes the hand- 
writing to be the broken covenant which God originally made 
with Adam. ‘This opinion is found in Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact and Cicumenius, Ambrose and Anselm. Biihr, and others, 
trace this opinion to Ireneus. Speaking of the handwriting 
of our debt as affixed to the cross, he says—quemadmodum per 
lignum facti sumus debitores Deo, per lignum accipiamus nostri 
debitt remissionem.' ‘The use of this fanciful analogy can 
scarce, perhaps, be taken as a formal exegesis, though he 
regards the handwriting generally as sin. Tertullian is said to 
hold a similar notion, but his opinion will be seen to be more in 
unison with our own. Bihr well objects to this view, that 
errors on this subject are not among those alleged to be held 
by the false teachers, and that this Adamic covenant, contain- 
ing principally one prohibition, could in no appropriate sense 
have such a descriptive plural noun as δόγματα attached to it. 
The whole paragraph refers to a later transaction altogether, 
than the covenant of Eden. 


1 Adversus Haeres. y. 17, 3. 


COLOSSIANS II. 14. 167 


3. The reformers Melancthon, Luther, and Zuingli, thought 
the reference to be to the accusations of conscience. The 
guilty conscience resembles a guilt-book, or an indictment.' 
Besides replying, with Biihr, that this exegesis does not tally 
with the purpose of the paragraph, nor with the idea implied 
in δόγματα, we may add, that the notion of the Reformers is 
wholly of a subjective nature, whereas the verse presents an 
objective view of the work of God in Christ. It tells us what 
God has done as the means of enabling Him to forgive sins, 
but their interpretation points to a blessing which follows only 
from the forgiveness of sin. The act of God is prior to for- 
giveness—is external in its nature; while pardon, with a quieted 
conscience, is one of the results of the believing reception of 
it. An inner conviction, also, cannot be well figured as an, 
outer and written record of many heads against us. These | 
critics confound what follows from faith in the cross, with what 
was done upon the cross that faith might secure such a result. 
It is one thing to expunge an indictment, and quite another 
thing to have the blessed consciousness that we actually share 
in the indemnity. 

4. Not a few understand the apostle to refer to the cere- 
monial law, or the Mosaic law in its ritual part or aspect. 
Such is the view of Calvin, Beza, Crocius, van Till, Gomar, 
Vorstius, Grotius, Deyling, Schoettgen, Wolf, Bihr, and 
others. This is, no doubt, the common view, and it is true so 
far as it goes. The entire ritual, with its lustrations and sacri- 
fices, had a close and constant connection with sin—“ in them 
was a remembrance of sin every year.” It is true that it was 
abrogated by the death of Christ on the cross, and it is also 
true that one special error of the false teachers was the incul- 
cation of ceremonial distinctions and observances, and that the 
apostle has such mischievous teaching specially in view. But 
it is not the less true that the apostle makes no such distinc- 
tion between one part of the Mosaic law and another. In the 
parallel passage in the twin epistle the apostle speaks of the 
“enmity” produced by the ceremonial law, but that was an 
enmity of races—between Israel who possessed it, and Non- 


1 Unser Gewissen gleich als ein Schuldbuch ist.— Luther. 


108 COLOSSIANS II. 14. 


Israel which wanted it. So that, in order to their union, the 
cause of separation and mutual dislike must be taken out of 
the way. But here the apostle speaks not of race and race— 
nor of Jew and Gentile as separated in blood and creed, but 
of both as being in the same condition—having a handwriting 
against them. He does not specify separate parties, he says 
“us,” whether Jew or Gentile. Nay, more, it is to Gentiles, 
distinguished by the uncircumcision of their flesh, and never 
placed under the ceremonial law, that the apostle is speaking. 
That law spoke, indeed, of sin, but it spoke intelligibly only 
to those who understood its symbols, and obeyed its prescrip- 
tions. Still the ceremonial law was against the Gentiles, as it 
kept them out of the Divine covenant. Moreover, the apostle 
is writing of a blessing not determined in its distribution by 
race or blood, but enjoyed by all the members of the church— 
the forgiveness of sin. But the forgiveness of sin was not 
secured by the simple abrogation of the Levitical law, for its 
abrogation is only one, though an important one, of the many 
results of the death on Calvary. 

5. Therefore, we are inclined with Meyer, De Wette, Dave- 
nant, Neander, Bohmer, Huther, and others, to understand the 
\ reference of the apostle to the entire Mosaic law. That law 
| presents a condemnation of the whole human race—* that all 
' the world may become guilty before God.” Davenant says— 
“T accordingly explain the handwriting in ordinances to mean 
the force of the moral law binding to perfect obedience, and 
condemning for any defect in it, laden with the ceremonial 
rites as skirts and appendages.” But lest this opinion should 
imply that the moral law was abolished, he adds—‘ the law as 
to the power of binding and condemning is abrogated, and 
its rites and ceremonies are at the same time abolished.” 
But whatever the handwriting, with its ordinances, is, it 
undergoes only one process—it is blotted out. The distine- 
tion referred to, however true in result, cannot therefore be 
sustained as an interpretation. So that we take χειρόγραφον, 
not as denoting the Mosaic law, absolutely, and in itself, but 
rather in its indictment. It is against us, at once in direction 
and operation. It is the finding of the law which is against 
us, as well as its dogmatic form. And this, especially, is a 


COLOSSIANS IL. 14. 169 


bond, a writing which pronounces our sentence of death. This 
is Chrysostom’s view in its result, and also that of Tertullian, 
who writes—chirographum mortis,' symbolum mortis.’ Schoett- 
gen, in loc, adduces a similar rabbinical expression; when one 
sins, God dooms him to die, but when he repents, the hand- 
writing is abolished—tzama ann.’ It is not, therefore, so much 
the law with the authority of legislation, as the law with its 
power of punishment. It is not the code prescribing duty, but 
rather as at the same time authorizing the infliction of merited 
penalty, which becomes the χειρόγραφον. In this view, the 
δόγματα are a handwriting, or a bond which exhibits and 
warrants our liability to punishment. But the lability to 
penalty is expunged, the handwriting is wiped out. The law 
in itself is not, and cannot be contrary to men, but it has 
become so because they have failed to obey it. Its precepts 
are not hostile to them, for obedience to them would secure 
our welfare. The law has been given, both moral and cere- 
monial; the first has been universally broken, and therefore 
every man is exposed to its curse; the second presents this 
melancholy truth in its ritual bleodshedding and expiation; 
but what the one charged, and the other confessed,* has been 
obliterated. The claim of condemnation exhibited by the 
moral law, and traced in the blood and read by the fires of the 
Levitical law has now been blotted out; not the moral law 
itself, as it must be éternal and Sine tape its ori- 
gin in the Divine nature, and formmg an obligation under 
which évery create is placed by the fact of his existence. 
“Do we make void the law through faith?” asks the spas 
and his reply is, “nay, God forbid, we establish the law.” 

If the death of Christ was necessary to cancel the indict- 
ment which the law presented, it only strengthens and 
ratifies its preceptive authority. It follows, however, that 
if the special purpose of the ceremonial law was to con- 
fess the fact of man’s exposure to the curse, and pourtrays 
the mode of his deliverance from it, then, surely, the curse 
being borne, and the condemning sentence expunged, 

1 De pudicitia, xix. 2 De poenitentia, vi. 3 Tanchuma, fol. 44, 2. 


4 The χειρογ. bore upon it the signature or acknowledgment of the debtor, and so 
differed from συγγραφή, which contained the signatures of both contracting parties. 


170 COLOSSIANS II. 14. 


the Levitical code has served its purpose, and ceases to 
exist. What it taught in symbol, is now enforced in re- 
\ ality; what it foreshadowed in type, has now become matter 
\ of history. And this it is the special object of the apostle 
to show as a lesson and caution to the Colossians. 

This handwriting had assumed the form of “ordinances.” In 
Ephes. ii. 14, the apostle uses the term expressly of the cere- 
monial law and its positive institutions. But the two places 
are not entirely analogous. There the apostle describes the 
ceremonial code as a hedge between Jew and Gentile, and 
shows how, through its abolition by Christ in his death, the 
union of the two races was secured, both being, at the same 
time, and by the same event, reconciled to God. Here, how- 
ever, as the apostle speaks specially of the spiritual results of 
Christ’s death, and of these as effected by God the Father, he 
seems, as we have said, to refer to the entire Mosaic Institute, 
but especially to the ceremonial law, as it was so palpable and 
prominent a portion of the system, and contained such a num- 
ber of minute and peremptory enactments. 

Καὶ αὐτο ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ pécov—‘‘ And He has taken 
it out of the way.” The use of the perfect tense adds em- 
phasis to the verb—he took it out of the way, and still it 
remains out of the way. ‘The apostle says, καὶ avro—this 
very document, terrible as it is; that is to say, He not only 
blotted out the writing upon it, but He has taken out of 
the way the parchment itself; or, as Theophylact says— 
ἐποίησε μηδὲ φαίνεσθαι. The idiom ἐκ τοῦ μέσου (the contrast 
being ἐν τῷ μέσῳ) 15. NO uncommon one. On the change of 
construction from participle to verb marking emphasis, see 
under i. 6. Winer, ὃ 64, π. 2, b. How God has taken it so 
effectually out of the way is next told us— 

Προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ oravpw— Having nailed it to the 
cross.” The participle occurs only here in the New Testa- 
ment, but is similarly found in 3 Mace. iv. 9.’ The allusion 
is not to the tablet nailed to the cross above the sufferer, as 
Gieseler assumes, but to the crucifixion of the Redeemer Him- 
self. There seems to be no historical ground for the illustra- 


1 Also Lucian, Prometh. Opera, vol. ii, p. 2, ed. Bipont.—rocodrov χρόνον τῷ 


Καυκάσῳ προσηλωμένος. 


COLOSSIANS II, 15. i | 


tion of Grotius, that it was customary to thrust a nail through 
papers—declaring them old and obsolete, much in the same 
way as a Bank of England note is punched through the centre 
when declared to be no longer of value, and no longer to be 
put into circulation. The idea of the apostle is, that when 
Christ was nailed to the cross, the condemning power of the 
law was nailed along with Him, and died with Him—“ Now 
we are delivered from the law, that being dead in which we 
were held.” Rom. vu. 6. In other words, God exempts 
sinners from the sentence which they merit, through the 
suffermgs and death of Jesus. The implied doctrine is, that 
the guilt of men was borne by Christ when He died—was 
laid on Him by that God who by this method took the hand-_ 
writing out of the way. Jesus bore the sentence of the hand- 
writing in Himself, and God now remits its penalty; having 
forgiven you all your trespasses, masmuch as He has blotted 
out the hostile handwriting and taken it out of the way, for He 
nailed it to the cross of His Son. Meyer remarks, that 
ἐξαλείφειν and αἴρειν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου are not two really distinct 
acts, but represent the same thing. We should rather say, 
that the first term characterizes the act, and the second refers to 
the completed result ; while the third participle—poonAwcae, 
defines the external mode of accomplishment. 

(Ver. 15.) ᾿Απεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας 
—‘ Having spoiled the principalities and powers.” We 
should have expected καί to be placed between the two 
clauses; but its absence indicates the close connection, nay, 
the identity of the two acts; or, perhaps, of the process in 
which the two acts were completed. In blotting out the 
handwriting, God at the same time vanquished Satan. If | 
ever there was bathos in exegesis, it 1s in that of Rosenmiiller . 
—that when Jesus rose again from the dead, it was seen how 
vain were the efforts of the Jewish magistrates against Him. 
Suicer, Junker, and others, take a similar view. The terms 
have been explained under i. 16, and under Ephes. 1. 21; 
vi. 12. We cannot agree with Pierce that good angels are 
meant; they needed not to be spoiled or triumphed over 
openly. Hostile spiritual powers are plainly designated. 
Their reign over man had its origin in his sin; and their 


172 COLOSSIANS II, 15. 


usurpation lasted till sin was atoned for, and its power 
destroyed. Hence Satan is called the “god” and “ prince of 
this world.” [Ephes. ii. 2;] Luke xi. 22. 

The verb ἀπεκδύομαι, which means literally to cast off any- 
thing, such as clothing, has been taken by many as referring 
to Christ’s own death, as if he had cast off the flesh in dying 
—an idea which seems to have originated the reading τὴν 
σάρκα, in F, G, seen too in the Syriac, and followed by some 
of the Latin Fathers. Augustine has— spolians se carne. 
So that the figure has been supposed to be that of a naked 
wrestler. But the diction of the verse is that of avowed and 
open warfare, and the participle ἀπεκδ. must have the sense 
of spoiling; conquering, and then making the vanquished a 
spoil, as is done when a fallen foe is stript of his armour. 
This last is the idea and image of Meyer, which perhaps 15 
too minute, for the general figure is, that He stript them of 
all power and authority. The compound form of the verb 
indicates how completely this was done; éxévetv' is used in 
the sense of spoliare, and the Vulgate here renders exspolians. 

᾿Εδειγμάτισεν ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ---“ He made a show of them 
openly.” The allusion is plamly to the triumph which is 
celebrated after a battle. His spiritual foes, on being van- 
quished, were exhibited as a public spectacle. The meaning 
is not that He exposed their weakness—rijv ἀσθένειαν ἔδειξε, 
as Theodoret understands it. That is certainly implied, but 
the idea is, He has shown the fact of their complete subjuga- 
tion in His triumph over them. ‘There is no ground to give 
the simple verb the sense of the compound—zapaderypariZewv, 
and add the idea of shame, as is done by Theophylact, Beza, 
Roell, Storr, and Conybeare. Such an idea, as well as that 
of weakness, may be indeed inferred from the humiliating 
exposure. And it was no private parade, it was done ἐν 
παῤῥησίᾳ -- “openly.” John vu. 4. Theophylact gives it 
rightly —énpoota, πάντων ὁρώντων---“ openly, in the eyes of 
all;”—hiihnlich, frei und frank, as Meyer paraphrases it. 

Θριαμβεύσας ἐν αὐτῷ — “Having triumphed over them 
in it.” The participle is used in 2 Cor. 11. 14, with a hiphil 


1 Joseph. Bel. Jud. ii. 24. 


COLOSSIANS IL, 15. 173 


sense, and it here occurs with the accusative, like the Latin— 
triumphare aliquem. Adhering to the hiphil sense—“‘ maketh 
or causeth to triumph,” some would supply 1jua¢e—maketh 
us to triumph over them. Such an idea only encumbers the 
sense. The three verbs in the verse do not formaclimax. But 
the spiritual foes are spoiled, and then they are exposed; while 
the last participle defines the manner and purpose of the 
exposure—it formed a public triumph. The truth expressed is, 
that there has been complete and irretrievable subjugation. 

But the meaning and reference of the last words ἐν αὐτῷ are 
doubtful. The Syriac and Vulgate, with Theodoret, and the 
editors Griesbach and Scholz, read ἐν αὑτῷ --- Him.” If the 
reference be made to Christ, then it is wrong, for God is the 
nominative ; and if to God, then the phrase is not very intelli- 
gible. Meyer takes the reference to be to the principal noun 
of the preceding verse—yepdéypapov. His meaning is, that 
the expunged and perforated handwriting was a proof of 
Satan’s overthrow. ‘This exegesis, however, gives a fulness of 
meaning to ἐν αὐτῷ, which the words will not bear. They 
simply mean ‘‘in it,” that is, in the handwriting. Now it was 
not in the handwriting simply that God obtained his victory, 
but in obliterating it, and nailing it to the cross—an idea that 
could not be expressed by the bare ἐν αὐτῷ. “In the cheiro- 
graph,” and in what he did with the cheirograph, are very 
different ideas, requiring very different forms of diction. 

Opinions are nearly divided as to whether ἐν αὐτῷ refers 
to Christ or to the cross. Wolf, Musculus, Bengel, Storr, 
Flatt, Rosenmiiller, Biihr, Huther, and De Wette, hold the 
first view. Our objection to this view is, that in the two 
verses no mention is made of Christ. The work is wholly 
ascribed to God—not fermally to God in Christ. 

And, therefore, we incline to the other opinion, that ἐν αὐτῷ 
carries us back to σταυρῷ. Such is the opinion of the Greek 
Fathers, Theophylact and Cicumenius, of Calvin, Beza, Gro- 
tius, Crocius, Steiger, Bohmer, and Olshausen. Origen has no 
less than eight times for ἐν αὐτῷ the phrase ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ. 

-Epiphanius, Macarius, and Athanasius, read either so, or ἐν 
σταυρῷ. The reading is a gloss, but it shows the general 
opinion. In the cross God achieved His victory over the 


174 COLOSSIANS II. 15. 


infernal powers—‘“ through death,” he “that had the power 
of death” was destroyed. Through the agency of fallen 
spirits sin was introduced, and it was the sphere of their do- 
minion; they could rule in a condemned world, but not in a re- 
deemed one; and when that world was released from death 
by the death of Christ, the instrument of His death was 
the weapon of conquest and symbol of victory over them. 
Most strong is the prevailing opinion of the medieval Latin 
church, as seen in Aquinas, Anselm, and others, that this 
spoiling was in the nether world, and over the demons who 
held the souls of the patriarchs in captivity, and that the 
triumphal procession was the march of the imprisoned spirits 
out of the limbus patrum. [Ephes. iv. 8, 9.] The subject 
throughout the previous context is God, not Christ; and the 
whole notion is an idle chimera. 

Most glorious is the thought that the church is released 
from the bond that held it, and delivered from the hellish 
powers that tyrannized over humanity—a deliverance achieved 
for it by Him alone “whose right hand and holy arm” could get 
Him the victory. Redemption is a work at once of price and 


power, of expiation and conquest. On the cross was the 


purchase made; on the cross was the victory gained. The 
blood that wipes out the sentence was there shed, and the 
death which was the death-blow of Satan’s kingdom was there 
endured. Those nails which killed Christ pierced the sentence 
of doom—gave egress to the blood which cancelled it, and 
inflicted at the same time a mortal wound on the hosts of 
darkness. That power which Satan had exercised was so 
prostrated, that every one believing on Christ is freed from 


‘his vassalage. Christ’s death was a battle, and in it God 


achieved an immortal victory. The conflict was a furious 
one, mighty and mysterious in its struggle. The combatant 
died; but in dying He conquered. Hell might be congratu- 
lating itself that it had gained the mastery, and might be 
wondering what should be the most fitting commemoration 
and trophy, when He who died arose the victor—no enemy 
again daring to dispute His power or challenge His right, and 
then God exhibited his foes in open triumph. “The prince of 
this world is cast out.” 


COLOSSIANS II. 16. 175 


All this teaching bore upon the Colossian church and its 
crisis. Let not the ritual law—which exhibits the condemn- 
ing power of the whole law—be enacted among you, for it 
has been fully and formally abrogated. Let not your minds 
be dazzled or overawed by esoteric teaching about the spirit- 
world. All those spirits are beneath the Divine Master; if 
good, they are His servants; if evil, they are conquered 
vassals. 

Now follows the pointed and practical lesson. Already had 
they been warned against one phasis of error— philosophy 
and vain deceit,” and a sufficient reason is given. Next is 
rehearsed their privilege of circumcision and baptism, their 
death to sin and their life to God. Here their forgiveness is 
stated along with the means which had been taken to secure 
it; and this process, so decided and characteristic, lays the 
foundation for the warning in the verse which we are now to 
consider. ΠΣ 

(Ver. 16.) Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέται ἐν βρώσᾷ ἡ τὲ ἐν πόσει 

—‘Let no one, therefore, judge you in eating ΟΥ in drink- 
ing,” —test your piety by such a criterion. The participle οὖν 
refers back to the preceding statement, especially to the first 
clause of the 14th verse. The verb may be followed by the 
accusative, intimating who are the objects of judgment, while 
ἐν accompanying it, sometimes specifies its period, as in John 
xu. 48, and sometimes its quality, as in Acts xvii. 31, but 
here it denotes the basis on which judgment is passed, or 
rather, the sphere in which it is exercised. According to 
Meyer, βρῶσις, in the writings of the apostle Paul, is uni- 
formly actio edendi, and so distinct from Bpopa—cibus, though 
in other portions of the New Testament, and among the 
classics, that distinction is not observed. Some of the lexico- 
graphers do not admit the statement, as is manifest by their 
citations, neither does Fritzsche—but we believe Meyer to be 
correct. Πόσις is also the act of drinking, in contrast with 
πόμα, the draught. Though the Mosaic law did not dwell so 
much on drinks as meats, yet as we shall see, it included some 
statutes about drinks and drinking vessels, and, therefore, we 
cannot agree with De Wette that πόσις was inserted “for the 
sake of the alliteration”— des Gleichklanges wegen. The 


110 COLOSSIANS 11. 16. 


eating and drinking are, therefore, a reference to the dietetic 
injunctions of the Mosaic law. Lev. vil. 20—27; xi. Certain 
kinds of animal food were prohibited. The Jews were 
allowed the flesh of ruminant quadrupeds with a cloven hoof, 
of fishes with scales and fins, and of such insects as the locust, 
while unclean birds were specified in a separate catalogue. 
The priests on the eve of ministration were solemnly for- 
bidden the use of wine. Certain kinds of vessels that had 
contained water, and been defiled, were to be broken, but 
others were only to be rinsed. The Nazarites did not taste any 
product of the vine. No doubt the pride of sanctity was 
strong in the Jewish mind, and the tendency was, both in 
Essenes and Pharisees, to multiply such prohibitions, and to 
place around meats and drinks a finical array of minute and 
complex regulations. The party at Colosse had strong ascetic 
tendencies, and were apt to sit in judgment upon those who 
felt that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be 
refused.” The errorists forgot that the spirituality of Christ- 
ianity rose far above such physical restraints and distinctions, 
Sand that the new kingdom was “not meat and drink, but 
\righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” 

Ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ ca[>Barwv— Either in the 
particular of ἃ festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbath-days.” 
The phrase, ἐν μέρει, as in classic use,’ signifies not simply 
in respect of, as Beza, Flatt, Bihr, and Huther, give it. It 
gives a specialty to the theme or sphere of judgment, by 
individualizing the topic or occasion. Melancthon and Zan- 
chius render—vicibus festorum. The Greek Fathers Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact, take it as denoting a partial ob- 
servance, as if the heretics did not retain the whole of the 
original rule; and Calvin supposes ἐν μέρει to intimate that 
they made unwarranted distinctions between one day and 
another. ‘Feast,’ or Festival, refers, as is plain from the 
contrast, to the three great annual feasts of the Passover, 
Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The ‘“‘new moon” ushered in 
certain monthly celebrations, while the sabbaths were weekly 
in their periods. Some, indeed, such as Neumann, suppose 


9 


1 See Wetstein, im lov, Aelian, v. 8, 3. Krebs regards ἐν μέρει as an elegant re- 
dundancy, but his examples do not sustain his opinion. 


COLOSSIANS II. 16. ἘΠῚ 


the allusion to be to the grand sabbatic periods of the seventh 
day, the seventh year, and the fiftieth year. But there is no 
warrant or necessity for such a reference here, though the 
apostle says, to the Galatians, ‘ye observe days and months, 
and times and years.” Rom. xiv. 5, 6. The term σάβ- 
Barov often occurs in a plural form in the New Testament, as 
if, as Winer supposes, the Syro-Chaldaic form—xnzw had been 
transferred into the Greek tongue. Matt. xu.1; Luke iv. 16; 
Acts xi. 14; xvi. 13. Allusions to these feasts, collectively, 
will be found in 1 Chron. xxii. 81; 2 Chron. ii. 4; xxxi. 3. 
The observances of the Jewish rubric, whether in its original 
form, or with the multiplied and ascetic additions which it 
presented in those days, laid believers no longer under obliga- 
tion. They belonged to an obsolete system, which had 
“decayed and waxed old.” Christianity inculcated no such 
periodical holidays. For it did not bid men meet thrice 
a-year to feast themselves, but each day to “eat their bread 
with gladness and sineleness of heart.” It did not sum-| 
mon them to any tumultuous demonstration with “ trum- 
pets at new moon,” since every division of the month was a 
testimony of Divine goodness, and the whole kalendar was 
marked by Divine benefactions—every day alike a season | 
of prayer and joy. Nor were they to hallow the “ sabbaths,” 
for these had served their purpose, and the Lord’s day was now 
to be a season of loftier joy, as 10 commemorates a more august 
event than either the creation of the universe, or the exodus from 
Egypt. Every period is sanctified— day unto day uttereth 
speech, and night unto night teacheth knowledge.” Sensations 
of spiritual joy are not to be restricted to holy days, for they 
thrill the spirit every moment, and need not wait for expression 
till there be a solemn gathering, for every instant awakes to the 
claims and the raptures of religion. The new religion is too 
free and exuberant to be trained down to “times and seasons ” 
like its tame and rudimental predecessor. Its feast is daily, for} 
every day is holy; its moon never wanes, and its serene tran-\ 
quillity is an unbroken Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath was kept, | 
however, by the early Christians along with their own Lord’s | 
day for a considerable period; till at length, in 364, A.D. the 


Council of Laodicea condemned the practice as Judaizing. 
N 


178 COLOSSIANS II. 17. 


(Ver. 17.) "A ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων---“ Which are a 
shadow of things to come.” ‘The plural form of the relative 
has higher authority than the singular, which is adopted by 
Lachmann, and is found in B, F, G, and in several of the 
Latin Fathers. The relative is not to be restricted to σαβ- 
βάτων, as Richter argues; nor does it simply connect itself 
with those festive days, as Flatt takes it. The entire ritual is 
alluded to—the ritual as God appointed it, and not as over- 
loaded by its self-willed votaries. 

The noun σκιά may bear two different meanings. It may 
either signify a shadow projected from a body by its intercep- 
tion of the light; or it may signify as here a dim and shadowy 
sketch of an object, in contrast not only with a full and 
coloured likeness, but with the object itself’ Meyer contends 
strenuously for the former, viz. that σκιά is not σκιαγραφία, 
but simply “shadow,” as if the Christian economy threw its 
shadow back, and this shadow was ritual Mosaism. ‘This 
idea brings out, indeed, the typical relation which Judaism 
bore to Christianity. - But, perhaps, the apostle had the figure 
before his mind which he has elsewhere employed; ‘the law,” 
he says, “had a shadow of good things to come,” and not the 
“very image of the things.” In this expression he distin- 
guishes σκιά and εἰκών, as being both likenesses, though of a 
different kind; and in the passage before us, he distinguishes 
σκιά from the reality or substance—owpa—which it represents. 
The nouns σκιά and σῶμα are thus also contrasted by Jose- 
phus, when he makes Antipater say of Archelaus—oxiav 
αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα Photius 
vaguely renders σῶμα by ἀλήθεια. The “things to come” 
are the spiritual blessings of the Christian dispensation, not as 
Meyer, in accordance with his favourite theory, supposes, 
blessings to be enjoyed at the Parousia, or second coming. 
Heb. x. 1. The apostle employs ἐστί in the present, not 
because, as Meyer argues, the blessings are yet future to the 
present point of time; but either because, as Davenant sup- 
poses, he gives a definition, or because the apostle transports 
himself ideally to a period when ritual Judaism was of 


1 De Bel. Jud. ii. 2, 5. Algo Cicero, de Officiis, 3, 17. 


COLOSSIANS IL. 17. 179 


Divine obligation, and when it was really the shadow cf 
things yet to come. The connection of σκιά with the genitive 
τῶν per. forbids the notion of Zanchius and Suicer, that the 
reference may be to the comparative darkness of the former 
economy. 

To δὲ σῶμα Xpisrov— But the body is Christ’s.” A few 
Codices change the passage by a glaring amendment, and 
read 6 Χριστός, while A, B, C, prefix the article τοῦ, a read- 
ing which Lachmann prefers. “But the body is Christ’s,” 
that is, of Christ’s provision and possession. Meyer taking 
σῶμα in the sense of body, that is, the concrete reality of those 
things to come, supposes that Christ is here supposed to 
be its head. But the term body, with its correlative organ 
—head, invariably refers in Paul’s writings to the church—a 
meaning which cannot in this place be admitted. Chrysostom 
adopted this sense, and to support it, altered the connection, 
and clumsily joined this clause to the following verse—“ You 
who are the body of Christ, let no man deceive you of your 
reward.” The same construction is approved by Photius, and 
also by Augustine who has, corpus autem Christi, nemo vos 
convincat. The meaning is not that Christ is the body, but 
that He possesses it. The realities so long shadowed out are 
His—all that composes them belongs to Him. 

The clause then contains the great truth that the Mosaic 
economy was no empty congeries of useless and meaningless 
observances—infantine in character and design; but an or- 
ganism at once Divine in its origin, and fraught with lessons of 
striking form. It was a dim outline—oxia—of those substantial 
blessings which are of Christ, and it served a gracious purpose 
during its existence. Jt was arudimentary sketch. Its temple 
with its apartments, vessels, and furniture; its priesthood, in 
their imposing robes and duties; its altar, with the fire on its 
hearth, and the cloud of smoke resting over it; its victims, in 
their age, kind, and qualifications; its rubric, with its holidays, 
and their special observances; its minute ritual in reference 
to diet, dress, and disease—all were the faint lines of a sketch 
which was limned by the Divine pencil for the guidance and go- 
vernment of Hebrew faith and worship. The eye of faith might, 
as it gazed, be able to fill in the picture, and see in distant 


180 COLOSSIANS II. 17. 


perspective the sublime group ofa tabernacle filled and inhabited 
by the Great Spirit; a Priest offering the most costly of victims 
—the God-man presenting Himself; an altar consecrated by 
blood precious beyond all parallel; and a sabbatism not only 
serene and joyous on earth, but stretching away into eternity 
as a “rest remaining to the people of God.” Thus, the hiero- 
glyph and substance exactly correspond, though the former be 
only an adumbration and a miniature. 

But not only was there this close and pre-ordained relation 
between the shadow and the substance, there was also a 
predictive correspondence. The sketch is taken from the 
reality, and implies the existence of it. The shadow is the 
intended likeness of the substance. In other words, Christ- 
ianity was not fashioned to resemble Judaism, but Judaism 
was fashioned to resemble Christianity. The antitype is 
not constructed to bear a likeness to the type, but the 
type is constructed to bear a likeness to the antitype. It 
is, in short, because of the antitype that the type exists. 
The Mosaic economy being a rude draught of Christianity, 
presupposed its future existence. If it had been an institute 
without ulterior object, if its rites had contained no prospec- 
tive delineations, or if its whole design had terminated in present 
observance, then it could not have received the apostolic 
designation. But it was a typical system. Now, a type not 
only pictured out the nature of a future reality, but it foretold 
its certainty. It showed, and it foreshowed. The sacrifice 
not only showed that the offerer was under sentence of 
death, and that only by the substitutionary shedding of 
blood the awful sentence could be repealed; but it also 
foreshowed that the great and final oblation of infinite efficacy 
would assuredly be presented in “the fulness of the time.” It 
not only pourtrayed the mode, but it gave assurance of the 
fact—it was at once a symbol and a prophecy. The entire 
Jewish ritual was so organized, as not only to exhibit a faint 
and distant likeness to Christianity, but it established the 
certainty that the new dispensation of which it was an early 
and elementary copy should be at length organized in perfec- 
tion and symmetry. The “figure for the time then present” 
guaranteed the introduction of the figured reality in the time 


COLOSSIANS II. 17. 181 


to come. The sign not only preceded, but certified the 
advent of the thing signified. 

Still, the shadow is in itself nothing—it is empty, baseless, 
and indistinct. The Hebrew ceremonial could not give full 
instruction by its symbols, and it could only purge “as per- 
taining to the flesh.” It had no power to enter into the con- 
science, and impart peace and the sense of forgiveness. The 
blood of an animal could not secure Divine favour. The thief, 
after restoring fourfold to the man whom he had wronged, and 
so satisfying him, must also offer a victim on the altar to God, 
in order that the penalty incurred from Him might be remitted. 
Theman whohad been contaminated by any ceremonial impurity, 
who had touched a corpse, or come into accidental contact with 
a leper, was by means of an appointed ordeal of ablution and 
sacrifice restored to his previous status. But the whole appa- 
ratus was wanting in spiritual power, and its only virtue was 
in its connection with the substance to come. ‘That it was a 
shadow so designed, and not a fortuitous and unmeaning sys- 
tem, is plain from its correspondence with the body which is 
Christ’s, and its consequent fulfilment in Him. The harmony 
is universal and complete. The great High Priest has come 
and clothed Himself in humanity—a living vestment far more 
costly than the robes of Aaron “made for glory and for 
beauty ;” and all other victims have been superseded by His 
oblation of Himself Omniscience is His, and therefore no 
formal Urim and Thummim glitters on His breast. The Selft 
sacrifice He presented was pure as the fire from God by which 
it was consumed and it has been visibly accepted. He has 
gone through the starry vail, and into heaven itself, with the 
names of all His clients inscribed upon His heart; and He 
pleads the merit of His blood before a mercy seat not cano- 
pied by a cloud, but enveloped in the Majesty of Him who sits 
upon it. The woven and metallic cherubim disappear in the 
reality, for the angels having performed their allotted parts 
in the mystery of redemption, are “ministering spirits to 
them who shall be heirs of salvation.” There is no need 
now that the law be engraved on stone, for it is written in- 
delibly on “the fleshly tables of the heart.” It is no longer 
required that there be a bath, or a “sea of brass,” for believers 


182 COLOSSIANS II. 18. 


are washed in the laver of regeneration. The golden lamp- 
stand has been extinguished, for the lustre of the Enlightening 
Spirit fills the House of God. Nay, the entire church on 
earth is a spiritual priesthood, engaged in appropriate minis- 
trations, serving now, indeed, in the outer court, but soon to 
be called up into the inner sanctuary. 

The argument of the apostle then, is—why go down to 
“the weak and beggarly elements?” Who would listen to any 
sophistry urging him to prefer the shadow to the substance ? 
Such a relapse would be an attempt to roll back the Divine 
purpose, and impede that religious progress which Christ- 
ianity had introduced; an effort to restore an intolerable 
yoke, and rob the new του ον of its spirituality. and _vigour,. 5 
The result would be to ile devotion by a periodical mechan- 
ism, and deerade obedience into a service of trifles. And 
therefore the apostle solemnly warns the Colossians not to be 
imposed upon by such pretences, and not for a moment to sub- 
mit to teaching which would supplant the real by the ritual, 
and give them a religion of obsolete externalities for one of 
vital freedom and spiritual jurisdiction. 

(Ver. 18.) Μηδεὶς ὑμὰς katapspaevérw— Let no man rob 
you of your reward.” Theodoret explains the peculiar verb 
as meaning τὸ ἀδίκως βραβεύειν----ἴο confer a reward unjustly. 
Zonaras, on the 85th canon of the Laodicean Council, has 
usually been adduced, and he says that the action of the verb is 
done when this takes place—z6 μὴ τὸν νικήσαντα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ 
ββραβείου, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτὸ, “not to reckon one who has 
conquered worthy of the prize, but to give it to another.” 
Suidas says more distinctly—z6 ἄλλου ἀγωνιζομένου ἄλλον 
στεφανοῦσθαι λέγει 6 ἀπόστολος κατα[ϑῇραβεύεσθαι. The other 
figure, adopted by Beza, from one of the exceptional meanings 
of pafscbw, is not, sustained by any certain examples. His 
idea is, let no one usurp the office of a [βραβευτής against you; 
while in a similar way a-Lapide, Crocius, and Bengel, gen- 
erally adopt this meaning—let no one assuming such an office 
domineer over you, and so prescribe to you how you are to 
act in order to obtain the prize. Such an interpretation has 
more in derivation to recommend it than the notion of 
Luther, Castalio, and Calvin—let no one intercept the prize, 


COLOSSIANS II. 18. 183 


or get it before you. The apostle warns them to listen to 
none of these instructors, for their design was to rob them of 
that prize, which, as the result of their spiritual victory, Christ- 
ianity set before them. If they yielded to any of the practices 
referred to in this verse, then they followed the solicitation of one 
who would rob them of that “prize of their high calling” for 
which they had been pressing forward. It is thus a term of 
far deeper import than the preceding κρινέτω, though Photius, 
Hesychius, Elsner, Storr, Huther, Bihr, and Olshausen, vir- 
tually identify them. For there is in it not merely the giving 
of a wrong judgment, but a judgment which involves in it the 
loss of all that the gospel promises to the winner, a life of 
glory on high. It is a tame idea of De Wette, to suppose that 
the prize is the true worship of God, for it is here looked upon 
not as a prize, but as the means of obtaining the prize. It 
may be remarked in passing, that Jerome regards the verb 
as a Cilicism, or a provincialism of the apostle, but others have 
shown that the word occurs among the classics, as in Demos- 
thenes and Polybius. 

The true connection and meaning of the following word, 
θέλων, are not easily ascertained. The agitated question is, 
whether it should be joined to καταβραβευέτω, or to the follow- 
ing words, ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ. If it be joined to the former, 
the meaning will be “willingly;” let no one willingly seduce you; 
but this would be a counsel to the false teachers as well as to 
the Colossians. Or it may be, as Grotius gives it—etiamsi id 
maxime velit, “let no one, although he should set his heart 
upon it, rob you of your reward.” Beza finds in the term a 
support to the sense which he attached to the verb—let no one 
assume voluntarily the office of a prize-distributor over you, 
and thus wrong you. Erasmus gives the term an adverbial 
sense of cupide, studiose; and others render it ultro. Steiger 
inclines to a similar opinion, and Tittmann translates—consulto 
vel ultro.! But the usage is not well sustained in the New Tes- 
tament, and the participle is, as Bengel remarks, the first of a 
series, θέλων, ἐμβατεύων, φυσιούμενος. κρατῶν, and each of 
the participles has its independent construction. It must, 


1 De Synon. p. 130. 


184 COLOSSIANS II. 18. 


therefore, be joined to ἐν ramev.—but how? Olshausen, Wahl, 
Biihr, Bohmer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Bretschneider, pre- 
ceded by Hesychius, Phavorinus, Augustine, Hstius, Elsner, 
Storr, and Flatt, take θέλων in the sense of εὐδοκῶν, “ delight- 
ing in”—affectans humilitatem. Thus they regard it as a 
Hebraism formed upon the usage 2 xpy7—1 Sam. xvii. 22; 
2 Sam: xviv26; 2 Chron, ix. 85 Ps: ex..24 ΣΙΝ" 
Though this usage may be regarded as established in the 
Septuagint, yet it is not found in the New Testament, nor 
does it suit here. For the apostle is not wishing to paint the 
character of the false teacher, but to warn against his wiles. 
He does not mean to say that the false teacher has a special 
pride in his own humility, but he means to say, that the Colos- 
sians must be on their guard against him, for he will seek to 
entrap them by means of that humility. 

We give θέλων its common meaning. Let no man beguile 
you—wishing to do it by his humility. This is the natural 
view of the Greek Fathers, of Theodoret, and of Theophylact 
who says—6re θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς καταβραβεύειν διὰ ταπειν. δο- 
κούσης. So Photius, Calvin, Huther, Meyer, and De Wette. 
The preposition ἐν denotes the means of deception, or the 
sphere in which the deceiver moves. The humility referred 
to, as may be seen from the last verse of the chapter, is a 
_ spurious humility. Fanatical pride is often associated with 
this humility, as when, for show, the beggar’s feet are washed ; 
and the friar in his coarse rags walks barefooted and begs. 
And men become proud of their humility—gelory in the feel- 
ing of self-annihilation. The spirit of the false teacher, with 
all its professed lowliness, would not bend to the Divine reve- 
lation, but nursed its fallacies with a haughty tenacity, and 
preached them with an impious daring, for he was “ vainly 
puffed by his fleshly mind.” 

Καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων--- And adoration of angels.” 
This is another of the instruments of seduction. The genitive 
τῶν ἀγγελῶν cannot be that of subject, as if the meaning 
were, a worship like that which angels present, or such as man 
may learn from them—@pnoxela ἀγγελικὴ. Such a view is held 
by Schoettgen and Wolf, and in its spirit by Noesselt, Rosen- 
miiller, Luther, and Schrader. Tertullian says—aliquos tawat, 


COLOSSIANS II. 18. 185 


gui ex vistonibus angelicis dicebant, cibis abstinendum, &c. 
Adver. Marcion, v. 19. 

The genitive is that of object. The attempt of the false 
teacher was not to get them into an ecstasy such as that felt 
by the “rapt seraph, who adores and burns,” but it was a 
positive inculeation of angel-worship. θΘρησκεία is often 
followed by the genitive of object... Winer, ὃ 30, 1. The 
term, whatever its derivation, denotes devotional service. 
How angels came to be worshipped we may not precisely 
know, though, certainly, it might not be difficult to account 
for it, when one sees how saint-worship has spread itself so 
extensively in one section of Christendom. The angels 
occupied the highest place which creatures could occupy 
under the Theocracy. ‘They held lofty station and dis- 
charged important functions. The law was “ordained by 
angels, in the hands of a mediator,” nay, the apostle calls 
it “the word spoken by angels.” Jehovah descended 
with ten thousand of his holy ones, when “from His right 
hand went a fiery law.” The Jews, said Stephen, in his 
address, “received the law by the disposition of angels.” 
Whatever be the meaning of these declarations, there is 
no doubt that they indicate some special and important 
province of angelic operation. Josephus expresses the 
same opinion—the current one of his nation.?, No wonder 
that those beings, so sublimely commissioned by God, and 
burning in the reflection of His majesty, command human 
reverence, and are, therefore, themselves called “gods.” Ps. 
xevil. 7, compared with Heb. 1. 6. 


Now, the step from respect to worship is at once short and | 


easy, for it is but an exaggeration. The heart, not content 


with feeling that a beimg so near God and so like Him | 
should be held in esteem and admiration, passes into excess, Ὶ 
and worships where it had honoured. And to fortify itself 


in the practice, it perverted the angelic office. It raised | 
those creatures from attendants to mediators—from mes- | 


sengers to interested protectors. It would seem that in 


1 Herodian, v. Joseph. Antig. iv. 4, 1; iv. 8, 44, ἄς. ἄς. Wisdom, 14, 27; 
Clement, Strom. vi. 566. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 4. 
2 Antiq. xv. 5. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Jud. vol. i. p. 808. 


180 COLOSSIANS II. 18, 


the days of the patriarch Job! such a feeling existed in the 
early world. “Call now,” is the challenge of Eliphaz, “if 
there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints 
wilt thou turn?” and in another chapter mention is made of 
an angel interpreter. In the book of Tobit,’ the Jewish 
belief is incidentally brought out—that angels formally pre- 
sent prayers to God. In the imagery of the Apocalypse, we 
find an angel at the altar, having in his hand a golden censer 
and much incense, that he should offer it with “the prayers of 
all saints.” In the Testimony of the twelve Patriarchs, and in 
the book of Enoch, the same notion is prominently exhibited. 
And thus the prayer offered through the angel, was by and by 
presented to him. It was first offered to him that he might 
carry it to God, and then it was offered to him without such 
ulterior reference or prospect. Again, that angels were en- 
trusted with the presidency of various countries and nations, 
was another Jewish opinion; and it was with a superstitious 
, people a matter of extreme facility to pass from that obeisance, 
| which might be yielded to a representative of Divinity, to that 
veneration which is due to Jehovah alone. Ifa man bent one 
᾿ knee in loyalty, he soon bent both knees in worship ; and asked 
. from the substitute what should be solicited from the principal. 

That the worship of created spirits was wide-spread, thus 
admits of no doubt. The Fathers abundantly testify to it. 
Origen affirms it of the Jews, and Clement makes the same 
assertion; both of them, as well as the treatise called the 
“Preaching of Peter,” describing the Jews as λατρεύοντες 
ἀγγέλοις. An old Jewish liturgy distinctly contains angel-wor- 
ship, and exhibits one form of it. Celsus also avers it. The 
Platonic idea of demons—itself, in all probability, a relic of 
Eastern Theosophy—spread itself in Asia Minor, and combined 
with the Jewish superstition. That such practices should 
take root in Phrygia is no marvel, for there they found a 
congenial soil. Theodoret testifies to their existence, and that 
they remained in Phrygia and Pisidia for a long time. The 
thirty-fifth canon of the Council of Laodicea, a city in the 


ly, 1; xxxiii. 23. Hirzel and Prof. Lee on Job, im loc. 
2 xii, 12. Bohmer, Jsagoge in Epist. ad Coloss. p. 281. Neander, Geschichte 
der Pflanzung, &c., p. 508. Suicer, sub voce ἄγγελος. 


COLOSSIANS II. 18. 187 


vicinity, solemnly interdicted the practice, but did not wholly 
eradicate it. In the days of Theodoret, the archangel Michael 
was worshipped at Colosse ; and a ναὸς ἀρχαγγελικός was built 
in his honour, and for a miracle alleged to be wrought by him. 
Though those historical quotations referto post-apostolic periods, 
still they appear to describe the remnants of earlier practices, 
and they afford at least some analogies that help us to judge 
of the superstitions which the apostle mentions and reprobates. 
The Catholic interpreters, Estius and a-Lapide, make a strong 
effort to exclude this passage, from such as might be brought 
against the worship of saints. 

The two nouns, “humility and worship of angels,” are closely 
connected, and mean a species of humility connected with 
angel-worship. It was out of a fanatical humility that service 
was offered to angels. It was thought that the great God was 
too majestic and distant to be addressed, and they therefore 
invented these internuncit. That the heretical party thought 
the glory of the Only-Begotten too dazzling for approach, and 
therefore took refuge in angel-worship, is an opinion of Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact, but in opposition to the whole tenor 
of the rebuke generally, and of the following clause particu- 
larly, for it contains the accusation of “not holding the Head.” 
The true reason and connection are given as we have given 
them by Theodoret. 

“A μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων. This clause presents a very 
strange difference of reading, for the negative is omitted in 
some MSS. of high authority, such as A, B, D,' and by several 
of the Latin Fathers. It is therefore rejected by Lachmann, 
and his reading is approved by Olshausen, Steiger, Huther, 
and Meyer. Olshausen says, that μή was added because 
critics thought that they were obliged to insert a negative. 
His assertion may be turned against himself; for, we might 
reply that the copyists could not discover the propriety of μή 
according to their finical notions of grammar; since some, as 
in F, G, changed it into οὐκ, and others omitted it altogether. 
The meaning of the clause is not materially different which- 
ever reading be adopted. If the negative be omitted, the 
clause must be an ironical description. The words “ which 
he has seen,” will mean, visions which he professes or imagines 


188 COLOSSIANS II. 18. 


to have seen—visions which are the result of a morbid ima- 
gination or ἃ distempered brain. We prefer the common 
reading found in C, D"’, E, J, K, in the Vulgate, Gothic, and 
Syriac Versions, and in so many of the Greek Fathers. The 
negative μή, and not οὐκ, is rightly employed. Winer, ὃ 59, 5. 
The participle ἐμβατεύων, found only here in the New Testa- 
ment, but occurring several times in the Apocrypha, and allied 
in origin to the similar term éu(3aivw, is wrongly supposed 
by some, such as Erasmus, to signify, to walk in state—as if 
the expression were taken a tragicis cothurnis. It sometimes 
denotes, to go into the possession of, as in Josh. xix. 49. And 
then it is usually followed by εἰς. Buddaeus, Zanchius, and 
Huther, assign it such a meaning here. It also has the sense 
of—to go into, to penetrate into, or to intrude. It is so 
used of God,* and often of man, both in a literal and tropical 
sense, and is followed sometimes by the dative and sometimes, 
as here, by the accusative.” Phavorinus defines 10---τὸ ἔνδον 
ἐξερευνῆσαι ἢ σκοπῆσαι, and Hesychius explains it by the less 
intense term ζητήσας. The compound κενεμ[θατεύειν is em- 
ployed, in Plato, to denote senseless speculation. From the 
verb ἑώρακεν, there is no need to deduce the idea of mental 
perception or knowledge, as Heinrichs and Flatt incline to do 
—quae intellectu percipere nemo potest. The word is often 
used of visions and visionary representations—Acts xi. 17; 
ix. 1O—12; x. 3; Rev. ix. 17; and of a supersensuous view 
of God—John 1.18: vi. 46; xiv. 7; 1 John, ive 12: 

The reference in the clause—‘“ intruding into what he has 
not seen ”—appears to be the worship of angels. The current 
theosophy spent no litile of its ingenuity upon the spirit-world. 


Τὸ wandered not only beyond the regions of sense, but even that 


᾿ of Scripture. It mustered into troops the heavenly orders. 
| [Ephes. i. 21.] This oriental propensity was a prevalent one. 


The inquisitive spirit pryed into the invisible world around it 
and above it. It loved such phantasms, and lost itself in 


transcendental reveries. The creed of the Zendavesta had its 


Ormuzd, its six Amshaspands, its eight-and-twenty Izeds, and 


1 Chrysos. 2 Hom. in Philip. 
2 Philo, de Plant. Noe, vol. iii. p. 120, ed Pfeiffer. Aischylus, Persae, 441. Eurip. 
Electra, 595, Josephus, Antiq. xii. 1. 


COLOSSIANS 11. 18. 189 


hosts of Feruers—all of them objects of worship and prayer. 
Augustine says, with justice, that many had tried the interces- 
sion of angels, but had failed; and not only so, but—inciderunt 
in desiderium curiosarum visionum.' How the Jewish fancy 
strove to penetrate the curtain that conceals the unseen, may 
be learned from the following quotation from a rabbinical 
treatise.2. ‘“ As there are ten Sephiroth, so there are ten troops 
of angels, as follows:—the Erellim, Ishim, Benei-haelohin, 
Malachim, Hashmalim, Tarshishim, Shinanim, Cherubim, 
Ophanim, and the Seraphim. Captains are set over each of 
them—Michael over the Erellim, Zephaniah over the Ishim, 
Hophniel over the Benei-haelohim, Uzziel over the Malachim, 
Hashmal over the Hashmalim, Tarshish over the Tarshishim, 
Zadkiel over the Shinanim, Cherub over the Cherubim, 
Raphael over the Ophanim, and Jehuel over the Seraphim.” 
Tertullian mentions some who professed to divine their asceti- 
cism from angelic revelation,’ a remark which serves at least 
for illustration. 


Some, such as Steiger, have proposed to join the follow- | 
ing adverb εἰκῆ to ἐμβατεύων, and give it the sense of \ 
“rashly” or “uselessly.” This notion, however, is already 


contained in the reproof. But the idea with our exegesis is, 
that the mental inflation of the errorist, which co-exists with 
his humility and his angel-worship, and prompts him to pry 
into what is concealed from him, is eixj—it is without ground. 
It has no warrant. Matt. v. 22; Rom. xii. 4. 

The following clause discovers one prime ground of the 
heresy, and shows the principal reason why the gospel 


was not cordially received. It was not intricate enough,, 
it did not deal in any vain speculations, but it claimed | 


and commanded attention to the real and practical, and it 


showed not the way into the abstruse and recondite. It \ 


did not harmonize with current notions of angelology and 
asceticism, and it was outdone in those respects by Essene 
Gnosticism. It did not forbid the humble spirit to raise 
itself to the Divine throne; for it taught that the inter- 
vening distance was spanned by the mediatorial nature of 


1 Confess. x. 42. 2 Berith menucha in Eisenmenger, Entd. Jud. vii. p. 374. 
3 Adversus Mare. v. 


190 COLOSSIANS II. 18. 


Christ. It exhibited the angels as “ministering spirits,” or 


‘fellow-servants; but it held up no eccentric array of visions 


‘and phantasms, which might beguile men into fanatical wor- 


ship and conceited contrition. In the fulness of its revelation 
it left to no man the claim of discovery, or the merit of inven- 


tion. He, then, who did not receive it as presented to him, 
but wished to change its nature and supplement its oracles, 
so that it might have the air and the aspect of a transcendental 


theosophy, was “ puffed up by his fleshly mind,”’—thought 
himself possessed of a higher knowledge, and favoured with 
profounder instruction than our Lord and His apostles. 

The participle ¢vctotpevoc,—not from φύσις, which, in the 
classical writers, makes φυσιάω; but from giéw, —signifies 
inflated. 1 Cor. iv. 6, 18, 19; v. 2; vii. 1. The heretic 
was blown up with his delusion, verifying the remark— 
ἡ γνῶσις pvowi— knowledge puffeth up.” He was too 
proud to learn—too wise to acknowledge any instruction 
beyond himself. The source of inflation was a “fleshly mind,” 
‘he was puffed up ” 

Ὑπὸ τοῦ vode τῆς σαρκὸς avrov— By the mind of his 
flesh.” ‘The expression is peculiar, but darkly emphatic. 
Nove is mind—not simply intellect, but mind as the region 
of thought and susceptibility; while σάρξ is, as in so many 
other places, the name of unregenerate humanity. The ex- 
pression denotes something more than mens imbecilla. Nor 
is it enough to resolve the two genitives into the phrase— 
σαρκικῆς διανοίας, or with Usteri, into νοήματα σαρκικά. The 
genitive is not a mere predicate, but is the genitive of pos- 
session. ‘The “flesh” possesses and governs the “mind.” The 
mind did not struggle with the carnal principle, but succumbed 
to it. It was wholly under the sway of a nature unchanged 
by the grace of God, and which therefore exercised its pre- 
dominance to serve and please itself. In all these mental 
efforts and sentiments concerning Christianity, the false 
teacher was guided not by any pure regard to the Divine 
revelation, or by a simple desire to bow to the Divine will; 
but his “mind” was influenced by motives, and determined 
by reasonings, which sprung from a nature wholly under the 
empire of sense and fancy; a nature which was satisfied with 


COLOSSIANS II. 19. 191 


an array of external puerilities—which preferred ascetic dis- 
tinctions to spiritual self-denial —revelled in imaginations 
that at once sprung from it and lorded over it — and, in 
short, acting like itself and for itself, coveted and set up a 
religion of man, but spurned and thrust away that religion 
which is of God. And thus, in a later century, and in the 
same country, it was believed that the Holy Spirit communi- 
cated to Montanus more and nobler revelations than Christ 
had delivered in the gospel. The “flesh” could not but have a 
sensuous system—one resembling itself; and the “mind,” acting 
under its sway, could not but devise a scheme in keeping 
with such governing and prompting influence. 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
And, by this means, the abettor of error was “vainly puffed 
up” that he possessed a deeper enlightenment than the apostles, 
and a purer sanctity than the churches; and, in his vanity, he ὁ 
dreamed of being able, by his unhallowed reveries, to supply 
the defects, and multiply the attractions of the gospel. The 
three participles of this verse, and that of the first clause of 
the following verse, have a close connection—@éAwy express- 
ing the desire of the heresiarch to make converts by a spe- 
cious snare—éuPBarebwy pourtraying one special source and 
feature of his βυβίθῃηι---φυσιούμενος indicating his moral tem- 
perament—and, lastly, κρατῶν pointing to the lamentable ac- 
companiment and necessary result— not holding the Head ”— 

(Ver. 19.) Kai οὔ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν. The participle 
describes a firm grasp—a tenacious hold. Song of Sol. iii. 4; 
Acts Π|. 11; Matt. xiv. ὃ; Mark ix. 27. The term κεφαλή, 
applied to Christ as Head of His church, has been explained 
under Ephes. 1. 22, and alluded to Coloss. i. 18. Those error- 
ists did not hold the Head, and, indeed, the greater portion 
of their errors tended to this result. If they worshipped 
angels, they could not adore His person. If they insisted on 
circumcision and ascetic penances, they depreciated the merit 
of His work. If they preached the permanence of Mosaic 
ceremonies, they mistook the spirit and lost the benefit of the 
system which He had founded. They did not hold the truth 
as to His person or His work, His government or His dispen- 


} Miller renders—der von seinem ungittlichen Weltsinne aufgeblasene.—Lehre von 
der Siinde, p. 452. 


102 COLOSSIANS Il. 19. 


sation. Those errors on vital points were fatal. So long as 
cardinal truths are held, many minor misconceptions may 
be tolerated; but when the former are lost, Christianity 
becomes a worthless and nominal profession. Bengel says 
truly, gui non unice Christum tenet, plane non tenet. 

Ἔξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα, διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων, ἐπιχορη- 
γούμενον καὶ συμ[διϊιαζόμενον, αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ--- 
“From whom the whole body, through joints and bands 
supplied and compacted, groweth the growth of God.” The 
similar passage is Ephes.iv.16. The first words—é& οὗ, mean, 
from which Head as the source of life and growth. We 
should expect the relative in such a case to agree in gender 
with its antecedent—é& ἧς, and for this reason some copies 
add Χριστόν. The words are taken by some as masculine, 
the pronoun being supposed to refer to Him who is the Head 
—Christ. But though this be the common interpretation, as 
of Biihr, Huther, and De Wette, we cannot agree with it. It 
would destroy the harmony of the figure, which has its basis 
not in Christ as person, but in Christ as Head. Some take 
the relative as neuter, and in a special sense. Thus Ben- 
gel—ex quo, sc. tenendo caput. We agree, however, with 
Meyer, that the neuter form refers to the Head—not person- 
ally as Jesus, but really or objectively—nicht personlich sondern 
sachlich. Kiihner, ii. ὃ 704; Jelf, ὃ 820. 

[lav τὸ σῶμα . .. αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Such is 
the construction and ending of the sentence—‘“ groweth the 
growth of God.” The form αὔξει occurs only elsewhere in 
Ephes. ii. 21. There is no ellipse here needing the supply of 
κατά, as Piscator and others suppose; but the verb governs its 
correlate noun—no uncommon form of syntax. LEphes. 1. ὃ, 
20: 1. 4; iv. 1; John xvi. 26; ὃ Jelf, 552; § Buttmann, 
δ 131, 4, 5; Kiihner, ὃ 547, a. There is in such an idiom an 
extension of the meaning of the verb. Often, in such a case, 
when a relative does not intervene, the accusative has a dis- 
tinctive or intensive epithet connected with it. John. vii. 24; 
1 Tim. i. 18; Bernhardy, p. 106; Winer, ὃ 382, 2. Here we 
have a genitive for a similar purpose. Luke ii. 8. Now 
this genitive is not to be explained away as a mere Hebrew 
superlative, as in Storr’s paraphrase—muirifice crescit. Nor is 


COLOSSIANS IL. 19. 193 


the exegesis of Calvin, Biihr, and Winer in the third edition 
of his grammar, up to the full sense—incrementum quod Deus 
vult et probat; nor yet is κατὰ θεόν correct, as Chrysostom 
renders it. It means, as Winer gives it, in his fifth edition— 
‘Can increase wrought by God.” Winer, ὃ 37, 3. The growth 
of that spiritual body corresponds with its nature—is the 
result of Divine influence and power. And the means of 
growth are stated in the intermediate clause. For the body 
is not only connected with the head, but is also— 

Διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμ[δι- 
βαζόμενον. The first participle ἐπιχορηγ. is in the middle 
voice, and, in an absolute sense, means, “ furnished with re- 
eiprocal aid.” 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. iii. 5. Συναρμολογούμενον 
is the word used in the parallel verse of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, but the substantive ἐπεχορηγία occurs in the same 
verse. The next participle συμίθι(2. signifies “brought 
and held together in mutual adaptation.” (See under the 
second verse.) And this is done διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσ- 
pwv— by joints and ligatures.” The noun ἁφή signifies a 
joint, and so it is generally understood. Meyer supposes 
it to mean nervous energy or sensibility —— lebensthatigkeit 
—what the Greek Fathers understand by αἴσθησις. We 
may, perhaps, understand it not merely of joints in the strict 
anatomical sense, but generally of all those means, by which 
none of the parts or organs of the body are found in isola- 
tion. The other anarthrous noun, σύνδεσμος, has a mean- 
ing not dissimilar, and perhaps refers to those visible and 
palpable ligatures of flesh and sinew which give to the body 
unity of organization.' Dan. v. 6. Some would assign a 
noun to each participle—‘“ furnished by the jomts and com- 
pacted by the ligatures.” There appears, however, to be no 
necessity for this refinement. The apostle describes that 
unity of the body which is dependent upon its head, and is 
essential to its growth. The expression ἐξ οὗ, is neither te 
be confined to the participles nor restricted to the verb; for 
the apostle has said, emphatically, “the whole body.” It is 
not this or that organ that grows from its vital connection with 

1°RE ὀστοῦ εἰς ὀστοῦν ἐμφυόμενα σύνδισμος ἀμφοῖν γίγνεται κοινὸς. Galen, quoted 


by Bahr, in loc. Theodoret βανϑ8--- διὰ σῶν νεύρων ἔχει τὰ; ὀισθήσεις τὸ σῶμα. 
O 


194 COLOSSIANS IIL. 19. 


the head, while others unconnected perish and die; but the 
living energy of the head pervades the entire body—pervades 
it because it is an organic unity, supplied with conductors, 
and bound together by joints. Means are provided for dis- 
tributing through it this vitality ; there is no barrier to impede 
it—no point at which it stops. The body, so connected with 
the head, and so supplied and knit by internal structure and 
external bands, grows, and all grows, by Divine influence 
and blessing. The whole church of Christ depends on Him 
as its head—“ out of Him” are derived organization, life, and 
growth. ‘The idea is well expanded by Theophylact. 

The “joints and bands” have been differently understood, and 
so have the supply and the symmetry. Bengel understands 
the first noun and participle of faith, and the second noun and 
participle of love and peace; this last view being held also 
by Zanchius, who gives it as—charitas inter membra. This is 
also Davenant’s notion—“ the first substantive represents what 
unites us to Christ, and the second what binds us to one 
another.” It is a strange idea of Theodoret, that the “joints 
and bands” are prophets, apostles, and teachers. Béhmer 
adds, in modification, ‘but yet as little do we exclude the 
laity ”—‘‘aber eben so wenig exeludiren wie die laien.” Such 
an idea destroys the harmony of the figure. For teachers and 
taught compose the church, or the body and its organs, and 
they are held together by what the apostle calls joints and 
bands. To characterize minutely the spiritual elements of 
unity represented by these terms, would be pressing too 
much on the figure. The question is, what power gives 
vitality and union to the mystical body of Christ? The reply 
must be, Divine influence communicated by the Spirit, and 
using as its instruments faith and love. The last grace is 
specially mentioned in the correspondent passage of the twin 
epistle. The whole body, so pervaded and united, orows— 
all grows in perfect symmetry, and in connection with its 
Head. Without the head it dies—without “joints and bands” 
it falls into pieces, and each dissevered organ wastes away. 
The application is obvious. The church can enjoy neither 
life nor growth, if misunderstanding Christ's person or under- 
valuing His work, it have no vital union with Him. If the 


COLOSSIANS IL 20. 195 


creed of any community supplant His mediatorship, and find 
no atoning merit in His blood; if its worship look up to 
angels, and not to Him to whom “all power is given in heaven 
and in earth;” if it place its trust in ritual cbhservances and 
bodily service, it cannot be one either with Him or with other 
portions of His church. Severed alike from head and trunk— 
from the vitality of the one and the support and sympathies 
of the other—it dies in isolation. So it was or would be 
with him or with them who threatened to disturb the Colos- 
sian church. ‘The entire figure and description are more fully 
presented in Ephesians iv. 15, 16, where we have given a 
lengthened exegesis. 

The apostle still presses home his doctrine. It was no 
abstract truth which he had enunciated, and he winds up the 
paragraph by a reference to its pervading lesson—exhibiting 
the care and caution which should prevent any ordinances of 
an ascetic nature—such as those which belonged to the Jewish 
ritual—from being superinduced on Christianity. 

(Ver. 20.) Εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ 
κόσμουι The οὖν of the Received Text has no authority, 
neither has the article τῷ before the proper name. “Since ye 
died off with Christ from the rudiments of the world,” or, have 
been separated by such a death from the rudiments of the world. 
The phrase “rudiments of the world,” has been already explained 
under the eighth verse. To be dead to them is to be done with 
them, or, to be in such a state that they have no longer any au- 
thority over us. Thus in Rom. vii. 3, 4, the wife by the death of 
her husband is said to be so free from conjugal law, that she 
may marry another man. In Gal. ii. 19, the apostle speaks of 
being “dead to the law.” ‘The dative is used in those two cases, 
as if there was a consciousness of complete deliverance. The 
preposition ἀπό is here employed to intensify the idea, as if 
death were followed by distance or removal. Winer, § 51, 
Ρ. 448. They had nothing more to do with the rudiments of 
the world—and the rudiments of the world had nothing more 
to do with them. The apostle again introduces his favourite idea 
of union with Christ. ‘The death of Christ abrogated the 
ritual law; and being one with Him in that death, they had 
died to that law—the ἀπό denoting consequent separation. We 


190 COLOSSIANS ἢ. 20. 


cannot agree with Huther, in inferring from this passage, that 
the phrase “rudiments of the world,” expresses something 
more than the Mosaic law, and denotes the ethical life of the 
heathen world. He says—‘“ the lanoeuage implies that the 
Colossians had served the elements of the world; and if so, 
then, if you mean the ritual institute by these elements, you 
must hold what you can never prove, that the majority in this 
church were of Jewish extraction.”' But the argument is not 
conclusive. In Gal. iv. 9, the apostle may refer to heathen 
elements, so far as they had a ceremonial and sensuous aspect; 
but the rites of the heathen world—its στοιχεῖα, never had any 
Divine claim or obligation, so that the death of Christ did not 
formally annul them; whereas, the Mosaic law was an ordin- 
ance of God’s appointment, and only by yielding to it could 
religious privilege and blessing be enjoyed prior to the 
death on Calvary. It was by initiation into this rudimentary 
and worldly system, that the worship of the one God could be 
engaged in. Heathenism never had any authority over them, 
whatever might be its actual power. If its ordinances be meant, 
then the apostle warns against a return to them. This is not 
the case, for the ordinances against which he cautions were 
remnants of a system not wholly unlawful like Gentilism, but 
of one which had enjoyed Divine sanction. In short, the whole 
paragraph has special reference to Jewish customs. After 
speaking, in the eighth verse, of the rudiments of the world, he 
describes the glory of Christ, and affirms that the Colossian 
believers are circumcised in Him—a reference to the Jewish 
ritual. Then having said that the handwriting of ordinances 
had been blotted out, he adds, as a warranted inference from, 
and application of the doctrine—let no man judge you in 
eating and drinking, or in respect of new moons and Sabbath 
days—another direct allusion to Mosaic institutions. And in 
fine, as a sample of those rudiments of the world, he quotes— 
“touch not, taste not, handle not.” There were among them, it 
is true, other practices than such as had been originally Jewish; 
—an asceticism which was foreign to the Mosaic system, and an 
angel-worship which was, perhaps, based upon a misrepresenta- 


1 On the other hand, see Baur, Paulus, p. 594. 


COLOSSIANS II. 20. 197 


tion of traditions connected with it; but still the central error 
of the false teachers was an attempt to impose the ceremonial 
yoke, in some of its aspects, on the members of the Christian 
church, as something which would insure them a transcen- 
dental purity, and bring them into a magical connection with 
the powers of the spirit-world. The apostle then asks— 

Ti ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε, μὴ ἅψῃ, μηδὲ γεύσῃ; 
μηδὲ θίγῃς ;—* Why, as living in the world, do ye suffer such 
ordinances to be published among you as ‘touch not, taste not, 
handle not?’” Biihr is wrong in saying that τί stands for διὰ 
τί, though the one phrase may explain the other. The word 
κόσμος cannot here mean the physical world, as Schnecken- 
burger maintains,’ for it must have the ethical meaning which 
it bears in the previous clause and in verse eighth. It is the) 
sphere of the “weak and beggarly elements.” But the Colos-) 
sians had been translated into the kingdom of God’s dear’ 
Son, therefore the code of the realm which they had left: 
had no more force upon them. A Russian naturalized in’ 
Britain need not trouble himself about any imperial ukase, as 
if he yet lived under the Autocrat. 

The verb δογματίζειν, which occurs only here in the New 
Testament, but sometimes in the Septuagint and Apocrypha, 
signifies in the classics to pronounce an opinion, as well as 
to enforce or publish a decree. The latter meaning prevails 
in the Septuagint, Esther i. 9, &c.; 2 Mace. x. 8; xv. 36. 
Some look on the verb as active. Thus Melancthon, has de- 
ereta facitis; Ambrosiaster, decernitis, and Olshausen, “ why 
do ye again set up worldly ordinances?” The majority of 
commentators take the word in a middle sense, though Beza, 
Wolf, and Meyer, give it a passive significance. Buttmann, 
§ 135, 8. But we cannot see how the use of the middle 
would imply a censure, any more than the employment of the 
passive. The middle brings out rather a pointed caution— 
“why should ye permit the preaching of dogmas? or why 
should ye allow such dogmas to be imposed on you?” They 
could not suppress the teaching of the errorists, but they 
needed not to listen to it, and far less to yield to it. 


1 Theolog. Jahrb. 1848. 
g 


198 COLOSSIANS IL. 20. 


The strong form of the verb almost says, that the apostle 
suspected a latent tendency in their temperament to listen 
and be charmed. The apostle, in Ephes. 1. 15, calls the 
Mosaic law, im one aspect of it, by the name δόγματα, and he 
here uses the cognate verb referring to the same institute. 
The argument is a cogent one. They were dead to such 
ordinances—why then should they act as if they lived under 
them? They did not belong to that κόσμος, of the character 
of which such ordinances partook. They belied their entire 
position, and reversed all their relations, if, after being freed 
by Christ, they again sunk themselves into bondage—if they 
allowed the handwriting to be reinscribed, and taking the nail 
out of it, laid it up among their solemn archives as an instru- 
ment of revived and extended authority. To submit to the 
ritual which they had believed to be obsolete, was in direct 
antagonism to all that Jesus had done for them, and to all 
which they had willingly acknowledged as His achievement 
on their behalf. Some of the δόγματα to which the apostle 
alludes are now given, and they are ascetic in nature. But 
ere we advance to them, we shall take up the clause which we 
believe to be joined closely with δογματίζεσθε, viz., the last 
clause of verse 22. 

Κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Matt. 
xv. 9; Mark vil. 7; Isa. xxix. 13. Our reasons for adopting 
this view will be afterwards stated. ‘This clause describes the 
source of such δόγματα, and virtually contains another reason 
why they should not be submitted to. The prime reason is, that 
believers are dead with Christ to them; but the subordinate 
reason is, that the edicts are wholly human in their origin. “Why 
should ye for a moment suffer them to be imposed upon you 
according to—xara—or having no higher authority than, the 
commandments and doctrines of men?” The two nouns differ 
not, as Grotius supposes, that the former is enacted by law, 
and the latter enjoined by philosophers; but rather, as 
Olshausen says, the first is enactment—the second, the prin- 
ciples on which it is based. The first—évrad. is the dogma 
in its preceptive and practical form, of which there is a 
specimen in the preceding part of the verse—“touch not, 
taste not, handle not;” and the βοοοπά.- - διδασκαλία, is the 


ae 


COLOSSIANS II. 21. 199 


- 


doctrine out of which it arises—the convictions and theories 
by which it is illustrated and defended. The same general 
idea has been stated under the eighth verse. Christ is Head, 
and to Him alone do we owe subjection. Whatever autho- 
rity ordinances had when the Mosaic economy stood, they 
have none now—the institute being abolished in the death of 
Him who is the one Legislator. And all extra-biblical addi- 
tions to it were human in their very origin. 

(Ver. 21.) Μὴ ἅψῃ, μηδὲ γεύσῃ μηδὲ θίγῃς--““ Touch not, 
taste not, handle not.” ‘These curt dogmas are not the 
apostle’s own teaching, but the mottoes, or prominent lessons, 
or watchwords of the false teachers.’ In all probability, the 
three terms refer to the same general object—abstinence from 
certain meats and drinks. It is, therefore, excessive refinement 
to distribute them according to certain distinctions, either 
with Flatt, Bohmer, Hammond, and Homberg, referring the 
first verb,—or, with Grotius, the last verb,—to marriage; or, 
with Estius, Zanchius, and Erasmus, giving the first verb an 
allusion to Levitical uncleanness, special or general. ‘The two 
critics last named refer the last term to Levitical sacred things, 
but Michaelis and Storr refer it to impurities. Béhmer, with 
a strange caprice, finds a reference in θίγῃς to the holy oil 
which the Essenes specially regarded as labes. But though 
the words refer generally to diet, and are so used by the 
classics,” there may be a distinction among them, as they 
seem to be repeated, along with the negative, for the sake of 
emphasis. The first and last verbs are somewhat similar, and 
both represent in the Septuagint the Hebrew—»3. But the 
first term may here denote that handling which is necessary 
to eating—the touch which precedes taste; while the last, a 
sister-term with tango and touch, may signify the slightest 
contact. In Heb. xii. 20, the contrast seems to be this—a 
beast was not only not to graze on Sinai, but not even for 
a moment to set a hoof upon it. Thus in Eurip. Bacchae, 617, 
where a similar contrast obtains—“ he did not come in contact, 
far less handle me*—there was neither touch nor grasp.” The 

1 The words would, in modern usage, have the marks of quotation assigned to 


them. 2 Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 3, 5; i, 11. 
3 Oba’ ἔθιγεν οὐδ᾽ ἥψαθ᾽ ἡμῶν. 


200 COLOSSIANS If. 22 


last verb is the most dogmatic—you are not to take certain 
meats into your hand, nor are you to taste them; nay, you 
are not even to touch them, though in the slightest degree— 
you are to keep from them hand, tongue, and even finger-tip. 
The apostle does not specify the objects to be abstained from, 
for they were so well known to his readers. 

The connection and meaning of the next clause are matter 
of various opinion. 

(Ver. 22.) “A ἐστιν πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. The 
idea of Macknight is altogether unsupported. He supposes 
the reference of the apostle to be to Pythagorean abstinence 
from animal food, and he connects this and the previous verse 
in the following way. Touch not, taste not, handle not what- 
ever things tend to the destruction of life in the using. He 
takes fhe maxim of the false teachers condemned by the 
apostle to be this—abstain from everything the eating of 
which involves the taking away of life. The idea itself is 
foreign to the argument, nor can it be supported by the 
apostle’s diction. 

The question turns upon the meaning assigned to φθορά, 
and the supposed antecedent to the relative. 

I. A large party take φθορά in a spiritual sense, and sup- 
pose the relative to refer to the precepts contained in the 
preceding verse, as if the warning were—all which maxims 
tend by their observance to spiritual ruin—lead to the eternal 
destruction of such as are influenced by them. Some of those 
who hold this view, give ἀπόχρησις the sense of abuse, as if 
the apostle wished to say—the law did make distinctions of 
meats and drinks, but the unwarranted abuse of such a dis- 
tinction is a fatal course. Others, again, connect the last 
clause of the verse with the first—all which precepts tend to 
your own ruin, by your observance of them, for they are an 
observance based upon the doctrines and commandments of 
men. Such, generally, are the views of Ambrosiaster and 
Augustine, a-Lapide, Heumann, Suicer, and Junker. 

II. Others suppose the antecedent to be not the maxims, 
but the things forbidden in them, and among such critics there 
are two classes. 

1. Some suppose the apostle to be still further showing the 


COLOSSIANS IIL. 22. 201 


opinion of the false teachers. According to them, the mean- 
ing is, either, all which meats and drinks lead to ruin in the 
use of them, according to the commandments and teachings 
of those men; or, all these meats and drinks to be abstained 
from, tend to destruction by the use of them, if you are to be 
judged by their opinions and doctrines. The verse, then, 
would contain this idea—the false teachers forbade the touch- 
ing and tasting of certain things, because, in their opinion, 
the use of them brought certain pernicious results. This 
opinion is concurred in by Kypke, Storr, De Wette, Bohmer, 
and Baumgarten-Crusius. There is nothing in the words 
themselves to contradict it; it may be grammatically defended, 
and the noun φθορά may bear the meaning of spiritual hurt, 
as in Gal. vi. 8. But it does not appear to us to be in so 
complete harmony with the context as is the following 
exegesis. 

2. The opinion which we prefer is that which gives the 
same antecedent to the relative, but understands the clause 
to be an exposure of the absurdity of such asceticism—“ all 
which things are meant for destruction through the use of 
them.” The meats and drinks about which the errorist ex- 
claimed—‘ touch not, taste not, handle not,” are meant to be 
consumed by use. They perish or cease to exist, because 
they are eaten and drunk for the support of life. They are 
intended for this destiny—éoriy cic—exist for it; God created 
them to be consumed, and they meet this destiny by being 
used to the full—awo—used to the complete satisfaction of 
appetite. The verb ἐστίν is more than a copula. It means— 
exist—which things exist. The noun φθορά is often used in 
a physical sense—in the Seventy, Exod. xviii. 18; Isa. xxiv. 
3; Jonah ii. 7; and in the New Testament, 1 Cor. xv. 42, 
50; 2 Peter 1.12; Josephus, Antig. vii. 13, ὃ. The term 
ἀπόχρησις is not abuse in the English sense of the word—but, 
“full use.” The Latin abutor has this meaning also—to use 
up; as often in Cicero, and also in Terence and Suetonius. It is 
this using up or consuming of a thing by use contained in the 
ἀπὸ and ab, that gave the term in Latin, Greek, and [nglish, 
the secondary signification of misuse. 

The apostle thus states two objections to the Colossian 


202 COLOSSIANS II. 22 


asceticism. First. It contradicts the design of Providence, 
which created such meats and drinks for man’s use and satis- 
faction. The apostle, as we have said, uses ἀπόχρησις, which 
does not signify abuse, but full use. The maxims of the 
false teacher are—“ touch not, taste not, handle not;” but the 
things from which he sternly enjoins this abstinence are, in 
their own nature, utterly harmless, and not only is the use of 
them unaccompanied with spiritual damage, but that use is 
enjoined by Him whose providence has so liberally furnished 
them for the stay and support of life. The meats and drinks 
so frowned upon have been created for the very purpose of 
being consumed, and having served their purpose in this con- 
sumption they perish. A religion of asceticism is, therefore, a 
libel upon Providence—a surly and superstitious refusal of the 
Divine benignity. It believes that the eating and drinking of 
some gifts of Divine goodness is fraught with unspeakable dan- 


\ ger, and, therefore, it makes its selections among them in its 


‘show of wisdom.” Strange conviction, that what is physically 


‘ nutritious may be spiritually poisonous; and that what gives 


strength to the body may send “leanness to the soul!” No 
wonder that such a self-righteous and ungrateful practice led 
by a swift path to a dark and Manichean theology. 

And, secondly, things which are meant to perish in being 
used up, can have little connection with genuine piety; it does 
not, and cannot depend on abstinence from them. Our Lord 
Himself said— not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a 
man;” and the apostle declares—“ every creature of God is 
good, and nothing to be refused;” and he speaks of meats 
‘which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.” 
1 Cor. vi. 18. It degrades Christianity to make it a system 
of physical or ascetic distinctions. Spirituality is not based 
on such external and ceremonial forms. ‘The error, as Ols- 
hausen says, ‘ was_in looking for holiness in the outward 
rather than_the inward.” Such an error has been, alas! too 
common in the church, and is the result of superstitious 
indolence and vanity. Men seek to be acted on from with- 
out, and to be sanctified as if by the secret and unconscious 
charm of an amulet; misunderstanding, forgetting, or shun- 
ning the mighty work or change which should be going on 


COLOSSIANS 11. 22. 203 


within. That change is from the centre to the outer life, not 
from the outer life to the seat of motive and thought. What 
the lips receive or refuse from “cup and platter,” has neither 
propitiatory merit nor demerit, nor can it exercise a hidden 
power over heart and mind. ‘The palate may be ungratified 
and yet the conscience be defiled; the anchorite, while he 
starves himself; may roll many a vice, as a sweet morsel, 
under his tongue; for self-denial in corporeal appetite usually 
takes ample revenge or compensation in spiritual indulgence 
and pride. And thus it has been often found, that men attach 
a higher sanctity to abstinence from certain kinds of food 
and physical refreshment, than to abstinence from sin; and 
would rather violate a Divine statute, than break a self-in- 
flicted fast. 


What mean they? Canst thou dream there is a power 
In lighter diet at a later hour 

To charm to sleep the threatenings of the skies, 

And hide past folly from all-seeing eyes Ὁ} 


Several things concur in justifying the view we have taken, 
which is that of the Greek Fathers, of Luther, Calvin, and Beza, 
of Grotius, Meyer, Steiger, and Bihr. The apostle is speaking 
of physical things, as eating and drinking, and it is natural to 
understand φθορά and ἀπόχρησις in their physical sense, and 
in connection with those elements of forbidden sustenance. 
Again, the writer places no substantive after the three verbs, 
and the ellipse imparts a certain emphasis. The objects to be 
abstained from were yet present to his mind, and it was 
natural for him to allude to them, and to show that they were 
designed for use, nay were of so little permanence and value 
that they perished in this use. The mimetic clause—‘ touch 
not,” &¢c., is inserted, or rather rapidly interjected, as the 
apostle passes on. It will therefore be best read in a paren- 
thesis. The swiftness of the apostle’s thoughts interferes so far 
with the order of them. He first shows the inconsistency of 
yielding to ordinances after they had become dead to them; 
and he meant to point out the source of such ordinances, but 
the mention of them suggests the pointed quotation of some 


! Cowper. 


204 COLOSSIANS 11. 23. 


of them, and then he cannot refrain, in a brief underthought, 
from exposing their absurdity, ere he formally carries out his 
purpose of showing their origin and inutility. Lastly, the 
Greek Fathers understand the phrase in this way. They do 
not mince the matter, but give φθορά its coarsest meaning. 
Chrysostom, followed by Theodoret, says—cic κόπρον yap 
ἅπαντα μεταβάλλεται. Cicumenius uses this language — 
ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ ἀφεδρωνι; While Theophylact is yet more 
explicit— φθειρόμενα yap ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ διὰ TOU ἀφεδρῶνος 
ὑπόῤῥει. 

(Ver. 23.) “Ατινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα copiag—* Which 
things indeed having a show of wisdom.” The antecedent to 
ἅτινα is the preceding clause—“ doctrines and commandments 
of men.” Kiihner, ὃ 431, 2. The peculiar form ἅτινα, repre- 
sents this idea—all which things, that is, the entire class of 
them. Kiihner, ὃ 782, 4,5. We do not connect ἐστίν with 
the participle ἔχοντα, as some do; but specially with the 
concluding clause of the verse. Λόγος signifies sometimes 
report or rumour — then mere rumour—then mere talk or 
pretext—words and only words—Adyov οὐ πραγμάτα. [ is 
thus opposed to ἀλήθειας. Diodorus Siculus, 13, 4; Poly- 
bius, 17, 18. The word thus means a certain kind of sem- 
blance, which in Scotch is called a sough — sound without 
reality. These precepts and commandments had the air, 
aspect, nomenclature, and pretensions of wisdom. The par- 
‘ticle μέν might imply the contrast, the apodosis not being 
formally expressed. Kiihner, ὃ 734, 2; Winer, ὃ 64, e. 
This last critic says—the parallel member of the sentence is 
included in the one with μέν. Thus, Heb. vi. 16,—men, 
indeed—jév—swear by the greater, and the implied contrast 
is, but God can only swear by Himself. These teachings 
have a show of wisdom, uév—but none in reality. Or, Rom. 
111. 2, “ What advantage, then, hath the Jew?—much every 
way” -- πρῶτον pév — “chiefly indeed,” but not wholly, 
“because that unto them were committed the oracles of 
God.” Thus Acts xix. 4. ᾿Ιωάννης μὲν ἐβάπτισεν --- John 
indeed baptized” the baptism of repentance; the implied 
contrast being—but not so Jesus. So, in the clause before 
us, the same construction has been found by some, —there 


COLOSSIANS IJ. 23. 205 


is the semblance, indeed, of wisdom, but not the reality. 
We are inclined, however, to regard the apodosis as ex- 
isting in οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινι; but δὲ is not expressed, because 
the construction is changed into the dative, following up the 
case of the preceding nouns, and because the word οὐκ, to 
which δέ would be attached, has in it a palpable adversative 
power. Kiihner, ὃ 734. It was worse than hypercriticism 
on the part of Jerome to say, that the particle was omitted— 
propter imperitiam artis grammaticae. The apostle particu- 
larizes and adds, this verbiage of wisdom consists “in will- 


μ᾿ ” 
worship ”— 


Ἔν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ. This is worship not enjoined by God, , 


but springing out of man’s own ingenuity — unauthorized 
devotion, θρησκεία being religious service—the outer mani- 
festation of inner feeling. Thus, ἐθελόδουλος, is one who is 
wilfully a slave; ἐθελοκίνδυνος, is one who is wilfully in 
danger. The worship referred to,is unsolicited and unaccepted. 
It is superstition, and probably is the homage paid to angels. 
Such worship had the feint of wisdom, as it professed to base 
itself on invisible arcana; and to ask and receive blessings 
and protection from creatures, whose agency comes not within 
the range of observation, but who were supposed to be the 
patrons and defenders of those who could name them in 
erring and extravagant devotion. 

Καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ --- “And humility.” This has been 
already explained under the 18th verse. The humility re- 


ferred to is plainly of that spurious kind, that, in its excess | 


ΤΟΝ 


a 


and affectation, could not look up to God, but deemed it won- | 


drous wisdom to invoke angels on its behalf. 

Καὶ ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. The term ἀφειδία is unsparingness, 
and here unsparingness in the form of severity, or that austere 
asceticism which the apostle has already reprimanded. In 
this sense it often occurs among the classical writers.’ 
The body is not only kept under, that is, kept in its proper 
and subordinate position, but it is hated, lacerated, and tor- 
mented into debility. The appetites are looked upon as sinful, 
and are checked —not supplied in healthful moderaticn. 


1 Diodorus Sic, 18, 00, Thueyd. vi. 9. 


206 COLOSSIANS II. 23. 


Every species of support 15 grudged—* to back and belly too.” 
The physical constitution is thus enervated and sickened. 
Yet its sinful tendencies are only beaten down, not eradicated. 
Job made a covenant with his eyes, but those fanatics would 
dim theirs by fasting. ‘The whole process was a cardinal mis- 
take, for it was a system of externals, both in cere- 
monial and ethics. The body might be reduced, but the evil 
bias might remain unchecked. A man might whip and fast 
himself into a walking skeleton, and yet the spirit within him 
might have all its Justs unconquered, for all it had lost was 
only the ability to gratify them. To place a fetter on a 
robber’s hand will not cure him of covetousness, though it 
may disqualify him from actual theft. To seal up a swearer’s 
mouth will not pluck profanity out of his heart, though it may 
for the time prevent him from taking God’s name in vain. 
To lacerate the flesh almost to suicide, merely incapacitates it 
for indulgence, but does not extirpate sinful desire. Its air of 
superior sanctity! is only pride in disguise—it has but “ἃ show 
of wisdom,” and is not— 

Οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ, πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκός. There is 
difficulty at arriving at a correct interpretation of these clauses, 
and one reason is, that we have first to solve whether they 
should be joined or disconnected. It is quite plain that the 
apostle intends a contrast, and the preposition ἐν is repeated. 

1. Very many interpreters supply σώματος to τιμῇ. The 
Greek interpreters held this view, followed by Pelagius, 


1 Car je vous prie quelle ombre de sagesse y a-il en ce caresme par exemple, qu’ils 
commencerent V’autre jour, aprés la preface ordinaire de leur carneval? Ow est la 
raison ? ou le sens commun, qui puisse avoiier, s’il est libre, que ce soit sagesse, aprés 
s’estre licemtié & toute sorte de débauches, and de folies, de penser effacer tout cela 
ayec une poignée de cendres? Que ce soit sagesse de croire, que c'est jeusner, de 
manger du poisson? Que ce soit sagesse d’estimer, que c’est se sanctifier, de manger 
des herbes, ou du saumon, ou de la mourué? and que c’est soitiller son ame d’un 
peché mortel, and digne du feu eternel, de gotiter d’un morceau de beuf, ou de mouton, 
ces quarante jours durant? comme si toute la nature des choses s’étoit changée en yn 
moment, and que les animaux de la terre fussent tous devenus contagieux, and mor- 
tels, de bons and salutaires, qu’ils étoyent, il n’y a que quatre jours? Est-ce sagesse 
d’attacher le Christianisme ἃ vne observation si peu raisonnable, and de dire, comme 
ils font, que ceux, qui mangent de la chair en ce temps, ne sont pas Chrétiens? Π 
n’y a point d’esprit si mediocre. qui ne juge aisement, qu'il n’y a nulle apparence de 
sagesse en tout cela; pour ne rien dire de pis.—Daillé, pp. 548 —550. 


COLOSSIANS IL 38. 207 


Calvin, Luther, and other reformers ; by Estius, and a-Lapide 
in the Popish Church; by Daillé, Davenant, and Mac- 
knight; and in later times by the lately deceased critics, 
De Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius. The meaning then, is— 
“which things have a show of wisdom in will-worship, 
humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honour shown 
to the body in reference to such things as satisfy corporeal 
appetite.” This is a favourite mterpretation, but we cannot 
receive it. For, as Meyer remarks, it gives σάρξ the meaning 
of σῶμα, which had just been previously used—a meaning 
which it cannot bear. Then, too, this exegesis supplies 
σώματος without any reason, and it restricts the contrast 
introduced by ov« to only one member of the sentence. 
That contrast seems to refer to all the manifestations of this 
specious wisdom, and not simply to one of them. Besides, 
this interpretation gives a very feeble ending to the verse; 
austerity toward the body, is weakly characterized as not 
giving honour to the body in things which satisfy its physical 
appetites, as if the Colossians needed such a definition. And 
lastly, this πλησμονή is something more than the gratification 
of corporeal desire, for in the Pauline vocabulary, σῶμα is 
only a portion of σάρξ. 

2. Another view, which holds the same connection, is that 
which gives τιμή the sense of value, and brings out this exegesis 
—which are not of any value, inasmuch as they are concerned 
with things which serve only to the gratification of the 
flesh. These are useless prohibitions, and have but a show of 
wisdom, for they are concerned with matters which minister 
only to appetite—quum ad ea spectent quibus farcitur caro. 
The participle ὀντα is thus supposed to stand before πρός. 
This is the idea of Beza and Crocius, and that of Heinrichs is 
only a worse modification of it. It restricts the meaning of 
σάρξ, and needs considerable cking out in its construction. 

3. Others take the word σάρξ in its full sense, and suppose 
the apostle to mean that all prohibitions which bear especially 
against the body are of little worth, for they minister all the 
while to the pride of corrupted humanity. The last clause is 
thus nearly equivalent to an earlier one—‘“ vainly puffed up 
by his fleshly mind.” With some varieties, this is the exegesis 


208 COLOSSIANS 11. 23. 


of Hilary, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Bohmer, Steiger, Biihr, and 
Huther. Meyer, in taking the same view, places σαρκός in 
contrast with c@parog, and πλησμονή with ἀφειδία. He also 
lays the principal stress of the contrast on the words οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ 
τινὶ, as if they stood in antagonism to the λόγον σοφίας. 
That wisdom is all a pretence—it has no honour in reality 
or basis. Still with this otherwise good interpretation, the 
connection of the last clause appears to be hard, for πρός must 
signify wm dadurch, or “all of them tend to.” A modification 
of this view is adopted by Conybeare, who gives the clause 
a pregnant sense—‘ not of any value to check the indulgence 
of the flesh.” His reviewer in the North British Review 
applauds the exegesis.' We do not accept the sense of fleshly 
passion for σάρξ, and we cannot believe πρός to be so utterly 
indifferent in its meaning. In the proposed exegesis, πρός 
must signify “against.” It sometimes is so translated, still 
the idea of hostility is found, not in the particle, but in its 
adjuncts, as μάχεσθαι, (3a Acc, or as in the New Testament, Acts 
vi. 1, where the idea of antagonism is found in γογγυσμός, 
Acts xxiv. 19, where the clause is preceded by κατηγορεῖν; 
and in Ephes. vi. 11, where there is the idea of combat. In 
all such cases the idea of hostility is implied in the clause, 
and the preposition only expresses the reference—but there is 
no such idea implied in the verse before us. The same 
principle explains the array of classical instances adduced by 
Peile. 

4, While we take this general view, we are inclined to 
regard the verse, from λόγον to τινί, as participial; and with 
Bihr, closely to connect ἐστίν with πρός. “ Which things 
having, indeed, a show of wisdom in superstition, humility, 
and corporeal austerity, not in any thing of value, are for, or 
minister to the gratification of the flesh.” Πρός after εἶμι, 
denotes result. John xi. 4. There needs, with this view, the 
insertion of no explanatory terms, or connecting ideas taken 
for granted. The verb stands at a distance from the preposi- 
tion, but is not on that account the less emphatic. The apostle 


1 Vol. xx. p. 336. ‘There is really no difficulty in the πρός. As a jocose phil- 
ologer of our acquaintance observed—‘ Poor sds is morally indifferent, and flexible 


either to checking or promoting.’ ἢ 


COLOSSIANS IL 38. 209 


means to condemn those precepts and teachings, and he is about 
to pronounce the sentence; but to make it the more emphatic he 
briefly enumerates what they chiefly consist of, and then his 
censure is, that they produce an effect directly the opposite to 
their professed design. Their avowed purpose is to lower and 
abase humanity, and he gives them epithets all showing this 
object; while he adds with sternness and force, that their 
only result is to rouse up and inflate unregenerate humanity. 
That πλησμονή can bear this tropical meaning there is no 
doubt, as in Hab. 11. 16, where the word occurs with ἀτιμίας ; 
Sirach i. 16, where it is used with σοφίας ; and Isaiah lxv. 15, 
where it stands absolutely, but with a spiritual sense. The 
phrase οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί, then brings out this contrast—those 
doctrines have in sooth a show of wisdom, in their will-wor- 
ship, humility, and corporeal austerity, but they have really 
nothing of value. 

The paragraph therefore reprobates superstitious asceticism. 
The religious history of the world shows what fascination there 
is to many minds in voluntary suffering. Such asceticism 
threw its eclipse over the bright and lovely spirit of Pascal. 
The oriental temperament feels powerfully the fatal charm. 
As if the Divine Being might fail to subject them to a suf- 
ficient amount of discipline, men assume the labour of dis- 
ciplining themselves, but choose a mode very unlike that 
which God usually employs. 


The Brahmin kindles on his own bare head 

The sacred fires, self-torturing his trade. 

Which is the saintlier worthy of the two ? 

Past all dispute yon anchorite, say you. 

Your sentence and mine differ. What's a name? 
I say the Brahmin has the fairer claim, 

If sufferings, Scripture nowhere recommends, 
Devised by self to answer selfish ends 

Give saintship, then, all Europe must agree 

Ten starveling hermits suffer less than he. 


Such delusions are not confined to religious follies, for their 
origin lies deep in human nature. Men glory in being what 
their fellows dare not aspire to, and there is no little self-ageran- 
dizement in this self-annihilation. When Diogenes lifted his 


foot on Plato’s velvet cushion and shouted, “thus I trample on 
Ῥ 


210 COLOSSIANS I. 23. 


Plato’s pride,” the Athenian sage justly replied, “ but with still 
greater pride.” ‘The apostle utters a similar sentiment; the 
carnal nature is all the while gratified, even though the body, 
wan and wasted, is reduced to the point of bare existence. 
There is more pride in cells and cloisters than in courts and 
palaces, and oftentimes as gross sensuality. The devotee 
deifies himself, is more to himself than the object of his 
homage. The whole of these fanatical processes, so far from 
accomplishing their ostensible object, really produce the 
reverse; such will-worship is an impious invention; such 
humility is pride in its most sullen and offensive form; and 
these corporeal macerations, so far from subduing and sancti- 
fying, only gratify to satiety the coarse and selfish passions ; 
nay, as history has shown, tend to nurse licentiousness in one 
age, and a ferocious fanaticism in another. The entire phe- 
nomenon, whatever its special aspect, is a huge self-deception, 
and a reversal of that moral order which God has established. 
In the course of expounding this chapter, we have found 
several illustrations in post-apostolic times. We now present 
another, which shows how the practices described in this sec- 
tion were viewed in themselves, and condemned at a very early 
period. The unknown author of that very precious document, 
the letter to Diognetus, and now rightly included by Hefele 
among the remains of the apostolical Fathers, speaks im a style 
worthy of an apostle. He says of the Jews, “But mdeed 
I think that you have no need to learn from me their 
ridiculous and senseless alarms about their food, their super- 
stition about the Sabbath, their boasting of circumcision, 
and their pretexts of fasting, and the observance of new 
moons. How is it right to receive some of the things which 
God has created for the use of man as fitly’ created, and to 
reject others of them as useless and superfluous? How can it 
be else than impious to libel God, as if He had forbidden any 
good action to be done on the Sabbath-day? How worthy of 
ridicule their exultation about the curtailment of the flesh as a 
witness of their election, as though on this account they were 
the peculiar objects of God’s complacency! Who will regard 


1 Καλῶς. 


COLOSSIANS IL. 23. 20 


as a sion of piety, and will not much more regard as a mark 
of folly their scrupulous study of the’ stars, and their watching 
of the moon, in order to procure the observance of months 
and days, and to arrange the Divine dispensations and changes 
of the seasons—some into feasts and others into fasts, according 
to their inclination? I imagine that you are sufficiently in- 
formed, that the Christians rightly abstain from the prevail- 
ing emptiness of worship and delusion, and from the fussiness* 
and vain-glory of the Jews.” 


Our readers will pardon us for inserting in a note a modern instance of this pride 
of sanctity covered with a robe of revolting humility. Last year (1854), a new saint 
was added to the Popish calendar, by name Benedetto Guiseppe Labre, who had 
made his residence in the Coliseo for many years, and was noted by travellers for his 
craziness and filth. At the usual mock trial which takes place at a canonization, 
the pleading of the so-called Devil’s advocate against him was rebutted by the so- 
called God’s advocate in the following terms, literally translated from the paper :— 
“He was a model of humility, abstinence, and mortification, taking only for food 
remains of cabbage, lemon peel, or lettuce leaves, which he picked up in the streets. 
He even ate, once, some spoiled soup which he found on a dunghill, where it had 
been thrown. All these facts are fully proved by the juridical documents laid before 
the tribunal.” . . . . Having spoken at length of the wooden cup, all broken 
and rotten, in which he received his soup at the door of the houses, “‘ eternal monu- 
ment of his voluntary privations,” the advocate proceeds: ‘“ What more shall I say ? 
A glance cast upon him was sufficient to discover in him a perfect model of poverty. 
His hair and beard were neglected, his face pale, his garments ragged, his body 
livid; a rosary hung from his neck; he wore no stockings; his shirt was dirty and 
disgusting; and to give of him a full idea, let us add, that he was so completely 
covered with vermin (piddochi), that in the churches many persons kept away from 
him for fear of catching them! ” 


1 Παρεδρεύοντας. 
2 Πηλυπραγμοσύνης. Opera, Justini Mart. vol. ii. p. 474—6, ed. Otto. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE apostle leaves his scornful flagellation of the false 
teachers, and comes to a more congenial occupation. For 
though it is needful to refute error, it is more pleasant to 
inculeate truth. If the Colossian believers should act in 
accordance with their privileges—if they understood how the 
charge preferred against them by the law had been met with a 
discharge on tke cross of Calvary—if the process of sanc- 
tification beginning in their hearts should work outward, and 
hallow and adorn their lives—if they felt that whatever bless- 
ings they enjoyed in part, or anticipated in fulness, sprang 
from union with Christ, then should they be fortified against 
every effort to induce them to sever themselves from the 
Head, and against every attempt to substitute reveries for 
truth, or human inventions for Divine enactments. Then, 
too, should they learn that worship does not consist of 
superstitious invocations, and that sanctification is not identi- 
cal with fanatical austerities. Let them move in a spiritual 
region lifted far above those earthly vanities, and let them 
look down on them as the offspring of a morbid and self- 
deceived imagination, or the craving and the nutriment of a 
self-satisfied pride. 

(Ver. 1.) Εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ > Χριστῷ---ἰ If, then, ye ΕΑ 
been raised together with Christ,” or are in a risen state. The 
particle οὖν is illative, and εἰ does not mean “if,” as if it be- 
tokened uncertainty, but it introduces a premiss on which a 
conclusion is to be based. It is somewhat of a syllogistic form, 
as Fritzsche, Kiihner, and Meyer suppose, but the notion 
appears to be a needless refinement. ‘There are few forms of 
reasoning or inference based upon fact or hypothesis, which 
cannot be moulded into a syllogism. There is no doubtful- 
ness in the statement, it asserts an actual condition, as in 
many parts of the New Testament too numerous to quote. 


COLOSSIANS ΠῚ. 1. 213 


Hartung, 11. p. 202. The same meaning must be given to 
it as in 11. 20. They had been dead in sins, but they had 
been quickened together with Christ. There may be a refer- 
ence, as many suppose, to the phrase, “buried in baptism,” 
though there the allusion is to death to sin, not death in it. 
Now, the restoration of life implies resurrection, for the dead on 
beig quickened do not lie in their sepulchres. The power 
that reanimated Lazarus immediately cried to him, “come 
forth.” The nature and results of this spiritual resurrection 
are detailed under Ephes. 11. 6. Union with Christ enjoys a 
peculiar and merited prominence—“ risen with Christ.” Their 
new position laid them under a special obligation, and they 
are thus enjomed—‘ seek those things which are above ”— 
Ta ἄνω ζητεῖτε. The reference in ἄνω is here, as is proved 
by the concluding clause, to heaven—“ seek things in heaven.” 
There is no occasion to supply ἀγαθά, for it is implied. The 
expression is used in contrast with κάτω, and with ra ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς in the following verse. The same idea is often expressed, 
as in Philip. 1. 14, 20; Matt. vi. 20, 33; Gal. iv. 26. The 
region of spiritual death is a nether-world, that of life is an 
elevated realm—the living not only rise, but they sit with 
Christ “τὰ the heavenly places.” The precise locality is now 
indicated— ἱ 
Οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος“ Where 
Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.” The ideas of 
honour, power, and felicity, implied in the declaration will be 
found under Ephes. 1. 20. Illustrations or allusions occur in 
i Kinesin. 19: 1:Samixx. 25; ΒΒ. χε 1';Rev: αἴ. 21 ;: Rem. 
vill. 34; Heb. vii. 25; Philip. i. 9. 
The clause presents inducements to obey the injunction, 
‘Seek those things which are above.” And these inducements 
‘lie in the statement of two facts. First, they have been raised 
up with Christ, and therefore they ought to seek things above. 
Any other search or desire would be very inconsistent. ‘The 
image seems to be—the region of the dead is beneath; they 
are let down to their final resting-place. Should, then, a man 
rise from this dark and deep receptacle, and ascend to the 
living world, would he set his desires on the gloom, and chill, 
and rottenness, he had left behind him? Would he place the 


. 


214 COLOSSIANS IIL. 1. 


objects of his search among the coffins, and the mean and creep- 
ing things that live on putrefaction? Would he still seek for 
things below? At the very idea and memory of that locality 
would not his spirit shudder? And if the Christians at 
Colosse had been raised from a yet lower condition, and by a 
still nobler resurrection, should not similar feelings and 
associations rule their minds? Why should they be gazing 
downwards from their position, and groping amidst things so far 
beneath them? Their past state, with its sin and guilt, its 
degradation and misery, could surely have no attractions for 
them. Having been brought up, they must still look up; and 
what they seek must be in harmony with their own pure and 
elevated position—Sursum corda. And, secondly, Christ is above 
in a station of glory. Their union with Him will lead their 
thoughts to Him. Whatever the character of the things to be 
sought may be, they are to be found with Christ. Truth and 
blessing are from Him—promise and hope centre in Him. 
Whether the “things above” be a fuller glimpse of heaven, a 
higher preparation for it, or a sweeter foretaste of it; whether 
it be to learn its songs, reach a deeper sympathy with its 
enjoyments, or realize a living unity with its population; still, 
Christ at God’s right hand enjoys a special pre-eminence, as 
those attainments are from Him, and the song, the service, 
and the inhabitants of heaven, have Him as object, or as Lord. 
As the salvation which they experience comes from that 
blood by the shedding of which He rose to His glorious posi- 
tion—as there He intercedes so effectually, and governs so 
graciously, by word, providence, and Spirit—as there He 
holds heaven in their name, and prepares them for it—as their 
present life and peace originate in union with Him—a union 
to be realized yet more vividly when He shall bid them “ come 
up hither;” therefore should their desires stretch away up- 
ward and onward towards Him and the scene he occupies “ on 
the right hand of the glorious majesty.” ‘An high look,” though 
it be sin in ordinary things, and be the index of a proud 
heart, is yet the true aspect of an humble believer. 

The form of expression, “things above,” while it has a dis- 
tinctive meaning in Christianity, and is not a mere image, is 
one that is also based on our moral nature. Local elevation 


ΠΟ 


COLOSSIANS III. 2. 215 


is the instinctive symbol of spiritual aspiration and refinement. 
Hence the origin of the phrases collected by some commen- 
tators from the classics. 

(Ver. 2.) Ta ἄνω φρονεῖτε, μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς yiie—“ Set your 
mind on things above, not on things on the earth.” The verb 
in this verse differs so far from that employed in the preceding, 
that it refers more to inner disposition, while the former is 
rather practical pursuit. The sure safeguard against seek- 


‘ing things below, is not to set the mind upon them. The 


“things above” have been already glanced at. The things 
‘“‘on the earth” are not, as Huther and Schrader suppose, the 
meat and drinks and other elements of the ascetic system 
which the apostle condemns, but such things as are the objects 
of usual and intense search among men. Philip. iii. 18. The 
apostle does not urge any transcendental contempt of things 
below, but simply asks that the heart be not set upon them 
in the same way, and to the same extent, in which it is set 
upon things above. The pilgrim is not to despise the com- 
forts which he may meet with by the way, but he is not to 


| tarry among them, or leave them with regret. “Things on 
earth” are only subordinate and instrumental—‘ things above” 


are supreme and final. Attachment to things on the earth is 
unworthy of one who has risen with Christ, for they are beneath 
him, and the love of them is not at all in harmony with his 
position and prospects. What can wealth achieve for him 
who has treasure laid up in heaven? Or honour for him who 
is already enthroned in the heavenly places? Or pleasure for 
him who revels in “newness of life?” Or power for him who 
is endowed with a moral omnipotence? Or fame for him who 
enjoys the approval of God? Nay, too often when the “things 
on earth,” are possessed, they concentrate the heart upon them, 
and the “look and thoughts are downward bent.” Bishop Wil- 
son on this place observes—“ for things on earth too naturally 
draw us down, attract us, fix us. Esau’s red pottage prevails over 
the birthright. The guests in the parable turn away to their 
land, or oxen, or families. The Gadarene mind wishes Christ 
to depart from its coasts.”’ The things on earth are seen, 


' Lectures on Colossians, p. 282, 3d ed. 


216 COLOSSIANS ΠΙ. 3. 


therefore they are temporal; the things in heaven are unseen, 
and therefore they are eternal. If the mind be fully occupied 
with things above, things on earth will be barred out. The 
apostle adduces another reason, not indeed essentially different, 
but exhibiting another phasis of the argument— 

(Ver. 3.) ᾿Απεθάνετε yap-—“ For ye died.” The expression 
is general, and the apostle does not simply say ye died to the 
world—voie κάτω,, or mundo*—and should have no more con- 
cern with it, but he says, ye died, that is, with Christ, and all 
that is out of Christ, or hostile to Him, should cease to excite 
your attention, or engross your industry. The apostle had 
said in the first verse that they had risen with Christ, here he 
resorts to a previous point in their spiritual career, and says 
they had already died. ii. 20. Neither “seek nor savour” the 
things of earth, for having died, and having been even buried 
with Christ, your sphere of being, action, and enjoyment, is 
totally different from your former state. As Luther says— 
Wer leben nicht im Fleisch, sondern wir wohnen im Fleisch— 
‘‘we live not in the flesh, but we dwell in the flesh.” When 
they did die, their death was but a birth into a new life, for 
he adds— 

Kat ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῶ ἐν τῷ θεῷ---“Απά 
your life has been hidden with Christ in God.” The death is 
past and over, but the life has been hid, and still is in that 
hidden state—xékpumra. The peculiar phraseology of the 
clause has suggested a variety of interpretations. There are 
many who regard this life as future or eternal life, laid up for 
Christians with Christ in God. So the Greek Fathers, and 
many who partly follow them, such as Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, 
Barnes, and Meyer. We apprehend that the apostle speaks 
not of the resurrection, as Theodoret supposes, but of a spi- 
ritual life enjoyed now, though not in the meantime fully 
developed. That life which we now live in the flesh has a 
hidden source with Christ in God—its infinite fountain. The 
idea of Olshausen is somewhat different, for he places the 
notion of concealment in the nature of the life more than 
in its source. He says—-“ the life of believers is called hidden, 


' Theophylact. ° Bengel. 


COLOSSIANS JI. 8. 917 


inasmuch as it is inward, and the outward does not correspond 
with it.” Von Gerlach says—‘ his life is not in him, but it is 
in Christ.” The exegesis of De Wette is similar. This life, 
he says, is hidden, being inner as opposed to being visible 
—innerlich nicht auf das sichtbare gerichtet ist—and as being 
ideal, not—realoder offenbar. Barnes, again, lays too much stress 
on the idea of security: eternal life is “safely deposited”’ with 
Christ in God. A-Lapide finds his choicest illustration of the 
phrase in the seclusion of monastic life. We cannot agree 
with such as hold that the apostle calls this a hidden life, as 
beimg concealed from the world, inasmuch as he counsels 
them to make the results of it more apparent, and to show 
their vitality im their modes of action. The mortification 
of the members which is enjoined in the following verse, is 
but the fruit and expansion of this life. As it diffuses itself, 
it carries death with it to all sinful propensities. Now, of this 
life God is the source, and Christ the channel; and when it is 
said to be hid “ with Christ in God,” the meaning is not only 
that channel and fountain are both supersensuous and in- 
visible, but that our connection with them is also a matter of 
inner experience—not as yet of full and open manifestation. 
This life is hidden σὺν τῷ Xprorqp—“ with Christ,” for He is 
its medium, and our union with Him gives us life; and it is 
hidden with Him ἐν τῷ Ocq—“ in God,” not merely as He is 
now removed from view and exalted to God’s right hand, but 
as He enjoys supreme repose and fellowship in the bosom of 
His Father. Béhmer’s connection of ζωή at once with σὺν 
τῷ Χριστῷ is forbidden by the position of the words; and the 
eccentric and baseless interpretation of Calixtus and Heinrichs 
needs not be mentioned. The idea of concealment, and not 


1“ Ac ne molesta sit exspectatio, notemus istas particulas, in Deo, et cwm Christo: 
quae significant, extra periculum esse vitam nostram, tametsi non appareat. Nam 
et Deus fidelis est, ideoque non abnegabit depositum, nec fallet in suscepta custodia: 
et Christi societas maiorem etiamnum securitatem affert. Quid enim magis expeten- 
dum, quam vitam nostram manere cum ipso vitae fonte? Quare non est, quod ter- 
reamur, si undique circumspicientes vitam nusquam cernamus. Spe enim salvi 
sumus. a vero, quae iam patent oculis, non sperantur. Neque vero tantum mundi 
opinione vitam absconditam esse docet, sed etiam quoad sensum nostrum: quia hoc 
yerum et necessarium est spei nostrae experimentum, ut tanquam morte circumdati 
vitam alibi quacramus quam in mundo,’—Calyin in Joc. 


218 COLOSSIANS IIT. 3. 


that of security, seems to be principally contained in the verb, 
for it is placed in contrast with open manifestation at Christ's 
appearance. If the apostle had meant our future life, then the 
idea of security might naturally be found in this concealment. 
But he speaks of present life—tife really, though partially 
enjoyed, life giving a palpable, though feeble, demonstration of 
its health and vigour. The prepositions σύν and ἐν express, as 
Meyer remarks, the first, coherence, and the second, inherence. 

This life is at once divine and mediatorial—God’s gift to 
believers through Christ; and the gift, along with its medium 
and its destiny, are hidden in the Giver, as the infinite source. 
But this concealment is no argument against present and par- 
tial enjoyment; for one may drink of the stream and be un- 
able either to detect its source, which hides itself far away 
and high among the mountains, or conjecture at what distant 
point its deepening current pours itself into the ocean. The 
life is not said, by the apostle, to be hidden in itself, either 
from the world or from believers themselves, as so many com- 
mentators suppose. ‘True, indeed, it is mysterious. It is not 
among things of vulgar gaze. It is a strange experience; 
none can know it save he who has it. For Christians die and 
yet live; nay, the moment of death is that cf life—the instant 
of expiry is that of birth. Yet this life is now enjoyed—is 
therefore now a matter of secret consciousness, though much 
about it is beyond inquiry and analysis. No one can lay bare 
the principle of physical life; the knife of the anatomist can- 
not uncover the cord which binds the conscious thinking 
essence to its material organ and habitation. But the special 
thought of the apostle is, that the ethereal nature of spiritual 
life eludes research, alike in its origin and destiny. Its source 
is too high for us to climb to it, and its destiny is too noble to 
be written in human language. As to the former, it is hidden 
with Christ in God; and as to the latter, it shall not be fully 
revealed till Christ come the second time in glory. But it 
shall be ultimately disclosed. [or Christ, with whom our life 
is hidden, shall reveal Himself, and we whose life is so hidden 
with Him shall also appear with Him in glory. When its 
medium is revealed, its character and destiny shall also be 
laid bare. 


COLOSSIANS III. 4. 219 


(Ver. 4.) “Ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, τότε καὶ 
ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ.---““ When Christ, who 
is our life, shall appear, then, too, shall ye with Him be 
revealed in glory.” The form ἡμῶν appears, on good authority, 
to be preferable to the ὑμῶν of the Received Text. The verb 
φανερωθῇ is opposed to the κέκρυπται of the previous verse. 
There is concealment now, but there shall be ultimate and 
glorious disclosure. 1 Johni. 2; i. 2,5; Rom. vii. 18; 1 Tim. 
iii. 16; 1 Peter v. 4. Christ is termed “our life ;” and in the 
former verse our life is said to be hid with Him. He is our 
life, not simply because he reveals it, and He alone has “the 
words of eternal life ;” nor yet because coming that we “might 
have life, and that we might have it more abundantly,” He 
“died that we might live,” and has given us this blessed 
pledge—“‘as I live, ye shall live also ;” but specially, because 
by His Spirit, as His representative, He enters into the heart 
and gives it life—fans and fosters it by his continuous abode 
—eratifies all its instincts, and evokes all its susceptibilities 
by His word and His presence. “1 Christ be in you, the 
body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of 
righteousness.” 

When it is said—‘* Christ our life shall appear,” the mean- 
ing is, that He shall appear in the character of our life. In 
this peculiar aspect of His operation shall He make Himself 
manifest. To appear as our life, implies our relation to Him 
as His living ones; and the unvailing of the Fountain shall 
allow the eye to discover the myriads of rivulets which issue 
out of it; or, as our life is hid with Christ, so when Christ 
comes out of his hiding-place, our life shall accompany Him 
into openness and light. Nay more, as our life, He appears 
to perfect it, and to give it fulness and finality of development. 
At present it is checked by a variety of causes. It exists in 
a body ‘dead because of sin,” and it feels the chill of a 
mortality that so closely envelops it. The distance, too, 
implied in the fact—that it is hidden with Christ in God— 
keeps it from its perfect strength, and induces occasional debility 
and lassitude; but the revelation of Christ brings it into near- 
ness and vigour. Nay more, at that period, the body is to be 
brought into harmony with it, and “ mortality shall be swal- 


220 COLOSSIANS III. 4. 


lowed up of life.” For He who is our life shall diffuse life 
through us—“change our vile body, and fashion it like unto His 
own glorious body.” The physical frame then to be raised, 
spiritualized, and imbued with life, shall be a fit receptacle for 
the living soul within it, which shall then indulge its tastes 
without hindrance, feeling no barrier to activity in any 
of its occupations—no stint to capacity in any of its enjoy- 
ments. Hiems nostra, says Augustine, Christi occultatio, 
aestas nostra, Christi revelatio. Suicer remarks—gloria capitis 
est gloria corporis et membrorum. For the apostle describes, 
as the consequence of the appearance of Christ our life, that 
‘“Cwe, too, shall appear with Him in glory.” Rom. vii. 17; 1 
John iii. 2. Since He appears as our life, so to appear with 
Him is, on our part, to appear as partakers of His life. The 
source, progress, and maturity of our life shall then be fully 
apparent—how it originated, and how it was sustained—what 
course it took, and what obstacles it encountered—how it was 
still supported, and still maintained its hold—how it was felt 
in our own consciousness, and yet had its hidden spring “ with 
Christ in God”—and what shall be now its high crown and 
its magnificent destiny—all shall be seen in the living and 
life-filling brightness of “ Christ our life.” The followers of 
Christ shall surround Him in triumph, a dense and glorious 
retinue—“ ye, too, shall appear with Him,” and that—év δόξῃ. 

It would be wrong to restrict this “glory” to any special as- 
pect of final perfection. It consists, as Davenant, after the school- 
men, says, of the “robe of the soul and the robe of the body.” 
It is here the result of life—vita gloriosa,' of life in its highest 
form and fullest manifestation—life diffused through “ spirit, 
soul, and body.” Nor is our appearance in glory with Christ 
amomentary gleam; it is rather the first burst of unending 
splendour. And it has, or shall have, for its elements—final 
freedom from the sins and sorrows of earth; perfect holiness 
beyond the possibility of loss, with unmingled felicity beyond 
the reach of forfeit; an endless abode in heaven, and in the 
brightest province of it; the rapturcus adoration of God, and 
unbroken fellowship with Christ; the exalted companionship 


1 Beza, 


COLOSSIANS III. 5. ΟΝ 


of angels and genial spirits of human kindred; and the successful 
pursuit of Divine knowledge in a realm where no shadow ever 
falls, but where is chaunted the high halleluiah, welling out 
of the consciousness that all this ecstasy is of sovereign grace, 
ay, all of it sealed to us for eternity, im connection with 
‘Christ our life.” 

The apostle now descends to particularize certain forms of 
sins which were very prevalent in heathendom—in which they 
themselves had revelled during their prior state of gloom and 
degradation, but which they must now and for ever abandon. 

(Ver. 5.) Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς-- 
‘Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth.” 
“Therefore,” since such are the peculiarities and prospects of 
your spiritual state, act in harmony with them; and since you 
have died, diffuse the process of death through all your mem- 
bers. If the heart is dead, let all the organs which it once 
vivified and moved die too—nay, put them to death. Let 
them be killed from want of nutriment and exercise. Similar 
language is found in Rom. vii. 13, where θανατοῦτε is em- 
ployed; and in Gal. v. 24, where occurs the modal verb orav- 
ρώσατε. In τὰ μέλη, the allusion is to members of the body, 
taken, not in a physical, but in a spiritual sense. Hilary, 
Grotius, Bengel, and others, destroy the point of the allusion 
in regarding sin itself as a body, and its special parts as 
members. The apostle had strongly condemned asceticism, 
and declared it in the conclusion of the preceding chapter, 
to be an absolute failure, and he now shows how the end it 
contemplated is to be secured. There is no reason for Meyer 
to deny that the apostle regards “the old man” as the body 
to which such members belong. It is not, indeed, the eye, 
foot, and hand, as these are in themselves, or as they belong 
to the physical frame, but as they belong to, and are in 
subjection to the “old man.” The phrase is to be understood 
in the same spirit as our Lord’s emphatic declaration about 
the plucking out of the right eye, and the cutting off of the 
right arm. Matt. v.29. The lust that uses and debases these 
organs or members as its instruments, is to be extirpated. 

And the “members” are characterized as being τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
—‘upon the earth.” The allusion is to the previous phraseology 


222 COLOSSIANS III. 5. 


—‘ set your affections not on things on the earth.” That is to 
say, earth is the sphere of their existence and operation; and as 
they belong to it, they are to be killed, for they are in utter 
antagonism with that higher life which is hid with Christ in 
God. They are “of the earth, earthy”—their essence is earthy, 
and so are their temptations, sources, and forms of enjoyment. 
The man who possesses a life that has its spring in heaven, and 
seeks and relishes things above, will not stoop to gratifications 
which are so far beneath him in nature, so utterly opposed to 
that new and spiritual existence which he cherishes within him, 
and which grows in power and health in proportion to the 
thoroughness and universality of the death which is executed 
on the “ members which are on the earth.” The apostle then 
enumerates some of these forms of sensuality. 

Πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν Kaxhv— Fornica- 
tion, impurity, lust, and evil concupiscence.” These accusatives 
are in apposition to τὰ μέλη. ‘The first two terms are found 
in Ephes. v. 3, and denote fornication and lewdness. 2 Cor. 
xii. 21; Gal. v. 19. See especially under Ephes. iv. 19, 
where the second occurs, and is described. But, in fact, the 
shapes and kinds of lewdness, to be found not only in the pa- 
gan worship, and in the symbols carried in religious processions, 
but also in common life, as depicted on tables and furniture, 
are beyond description.1_ The term πάθος is too lightly under- 
stood by Grotius and Chrysostom, as signifying—motus vitiost, 
such as anger and hatred; and perhaps too darkly by such as 
refer it wholly to unnatural lust. The noun does not seem of 
itself to have this last sense, but it occurs with a special 
adjunct in Rom. i. 26; and the adjective, παθικός, has an 
indescribable baseness. It seems here to denote the state of 
mind that urges and excites to impurity—ré ἐρωτικὸν πάθος," 
that condition in which man is mastered by unchastity, and the 
imagination being defiled, is wholly at the mercy of obscene 
associations. It is morbus libidinis, as Bengel says. The 
next term, ἐπιθυμία κακή, refers to the same circle of vices, 
and is more general in its nature. The four words may be 
regarded as in two pairs. The prior pair refers to act, the first 


} Juvenal, Sat. ii. 2 Plato, Phaedrus, vol. i, p. 153, Op. ed. Bekker. 


COLOSSIANS III. 6. 233 


term more particular, and the second more comprehensive ; 
the second pair to impulse, the first, again, more special, and the 
second more sweeping in its nature. They were no longer to 
be guilty of fornication, or any similar deed of lewdness; they 
were no longer to be filled with libidinous thoughts, or any 
other prurient feelings, having their issue in lecherous indul- 
gences. 

Καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν ἥτις ἐστὶν cidwAoAaresta— And that 
covetousness which is idolatry.” The form ἥτις, may corres- 
pond to the Latin quippe quae—since indeed. The reader 
may turn for the meaning of πλεον. and its occurrence in this 
connection, to our comment on Ephes. iv. 19; v. 3—5. The 
noun πλεον. has the article, which none of the preceding sub- 
stantives have, and it alone is the antecedent to ἥτις. Winer, 
§ 17,1. 4. We believe that it does not characterize any form 
of sensuality, or quaestum meretricium, as the Greek expositors, 
and others after them, suppose, though it denotes a vice that 
has its origin in the same selfish or self-seeking depravity. 
Trench, in his New Testament Synonyms, § 24, has some 
excellent observations on this word, remarking that the πλε- 
ονέκτης is as free in scattering and squandering as he was 
eager and unscrupulous in getting; that monsters cf covet- 
ousness have been also monsters of lust: and that πλεονεξία 
is a far deeper passion than mere miserliness or avarice, as 
being “the fierce and ever fiercer longing of the creature 
which has turned from God to fill itself with the inferior 
objects of sense.” This desire of havmg more, and yet more, 
is idolatry. What it craves it worships, what it worships it 
makes its portion. To such a god there is given the first 
thought of the morning, the last wish of the evening, and the 
action of every waking hour. 

(Ver. 6.) Av ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Ocov— On account of 
which sins cometh the wrath of God.” The reading ov 6 has 
also several authorities in its favour. On the meaning of the 
clause see our exposition of Ephes. v. 5. This special wrath 
is often suffered on earth, and it is not wholly reserved for the 
other world. Meyer, as in the correspondent place in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, denies that the ὀργή is manifested 
here, and justifies his opinion by pointing to Paul’s certain 


224 COLOSSIANS III. 7. 


conviction of the near approach of the day of judgment. The 
sins mentioned in the previous verse are, as we have shown 
on Ephes. v. 6, often visited by penalty on earth. The next 
clause of the Textus Receptus—émt τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας --- 
is excluded by Tischendorf, but without sufficient authority. 
It is wanting in B, certainly, but this is a solitary MS. witness. 
The clause occtirs in Ephes. v. 6, and is there explained, as 
also under Ephes. ii. 2, ὃ. They who indulge in such vices, 
not only disobey the Divine statute, but also violate the laws 
of their own constitution. This ὀργή 15 more than chastise- 
ment, or κόλασις, it is direct and punitive indignation fre- 
quently inflicted here in the form of physical debility and 
disease, remorse and stupefaction. 

(Ver. 7.) “Ev οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν 
τούτοις. The relative οἷς may be either masculine or neuter, 
as it is referred to υἱούς, or to the a of the previous verse. 
Each construction has been vindicated. With Olshausen and 
Bihr, we prefer the neuter, not only because περιπατεῖν is 
usually employed in connection with things, and not persons, but 
because the believers in Colosse are said, in the next clause, 
to have lived in them, and in the 8th verse, to have thrown 
them all off. Calvin says—male Erasmus vertit, inter quos. 
Meyer prefers the masculine in this first clause, but is obliged 
to change the gender in reference to τούτοις in the second 
clause. ‘In which lusts ye too once walked,” “walked” having, 
of course, its common tropical meaning. But that period was 
now over—a new era had dawned; and their walk was in a 
widely different sphere, one in which, by the assistance of the 
Spirit, they copied the example of Jesus, and sought, and 
were acquiring a srowing preparation for the purity and bliss 
of heaven. 

"Ore ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις.  Tovtroic, and not αὐτοῖς, on the 
evidence of A, B, C, D' E,' though αὐτοῖς has in its 
favour Ὁ, E’, F, G, J, Κα. Flatt, Bohmer, Huther, and others, 
take τούτοις to be masculine; an exegesis which does not 
give any tolerable meaning. In ἐζῆτε, there is an allusion by 
contrast to the ἀπεθάνετε. They once lived in such sins. 
Life is here used in a spiritual, and not in its physical sense, 
as in 1 Thess. iii. 8. Other instances may be found in the 


COLOSSIANS III. 8. 295 


classics—possemne vivere, says Cicero, nisi in litteris viverem?' 
Libanius describes Alexander as ἐν Ὀδυσσειᾷ Gov; Aclian 
(/Tist. Var. iii. 13) speaks of a people so fond of wine—éore 
ζῇν αὐτοὺς ἐν οἴνῳ ; and we have the phrase of Cwvrec—they 
who enjoy life. They had felt supreme enjoyment in such 
indulgences. So much had they been engrossed with them, 
and such fancied gratification did they find in then, that they 
might be said to “live in them.” The difference of meaning 
between the two verbs has been variously understood, but there 
needs no special definition. They once walked in such lusts, 
when they lived in them ; that is, they were utterly addicted to 
them, for they believed that life or happiness was to be found 
in them. Calvin says the verbs differ, as do potentia et actus. 
(Ver. 8.) Nuvi δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα---“ But now 
ye too have put off the whole.” The words καὶ ὑμεῖς here 
correspond to καὶ ὑμεῖς in the preceding verse, and νυνί 
stands out in contrast with ποτέ. The verb is found in Ephes. 
iv. 25. Wolfis wrong in referring πάντα to μέλη, which is so 
far distant from it. The phrase τὰ πάντα is the entire circle of 
vices; not, as Winer says, this or that all (intensive), but ‘“ the 
all which is immediately adduced,” ὃ 20, 3. A radical and 
extensive change had taken place; but (δέ adversative) they 
had “cast off” that slough m which were lodged all those 
degrading sins. ‘The catalogue, or class of sins is subjoined. 
᾿Οργὴν, Supov, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στό- 
ματος vuwv— Anger, indignation, malice, calumny, abusive 
discourse out of your mouth.” The apostle observes a different 
order, and uses some other terms in Ephes. iv. 31. Under that 
place the first four terms repeated here have been explained. 
Biihr and Trench take ὀργή in distinction from θυμός, as 
denoting settled indignation bordering on revenge. ‘This is the 
Stoical definition—érifuuia τιμωρίας; and it is also the opin- 
ion of Origen, as brought out in his exposition of the second 
Psalm. Still, we think that though ὀργή characterizes a habit 
or state, the idea of visible display is usually associated with 
it, as indeed the phrase ὀργὴ θυμοῦ often found in the Septu- 
agint, plainly implies; and, as is manifest from the diction of 


| Ep. 9, 26. 
Q 


220 COLOSSIANS III. 9. 


the previous verse, “the wrath of God cometh.” ᾿Οργή is the 
outburst, or the vice in a palpable form; θυμός is the violent 
emotion that boils within; while κακία points to the state of 
heart in which malice originates, and [Ξἡλασφημία is that 
calumnious denunciation to which anger so often prompts. 
As regards αἰσχρολογία, which occurs only here, we agree 
with De Wette and Trench, that its meaning is not to be con- 
fined to obscene speech. That it has this express meaning 1s 
beyond any doubt, but it also often denotes generally foul or 
abusive language,' and as it is so closely connected with the 
passion of anger, such may be its meaning here. [Ὁ is, there- 
fore, a more comprehensive term than [Ξλασφημία, as the first 
refers to what especially injures character, and the second to 
what offends in any sense, not only to what hurts the ear of 
modesty, but to whatever in any form is scurrilous and inde- 
cent—that mixture of ribaldry and profanity which too often 
escapes from the burning lips of passion. The addition ἐκ τοῦ 
στόματος ὑμῶν may belong to both ββλασφ. and αἰσχρ. with the 
verb ἀπόθεσθε mentally repeated. Nor can we give the words 
the emphasis which Theophylact attaches to them. “See,” 
says he, ‘how he recounts the members of the old man,” that 
is, shows how each sins, as “the mind by falsehood, the heart 
by anger, the mouth by blasphemy, eyes and hidden members 
by fornication, the liver by evil concupiscence, the hands by 
covetousness.” 

From sins of malignity, the apostle passes to sins of falsehood. 

(Ver. 9.) Μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς adAHAAOVe—“ Do not lie to one 
another.” As one of the Greek Fathers says, falsehood ill 
became them who avowed themselves disciples of Him who 
said “1 am the truth.” The apostle, im writing to the Ephe- 
sians, adds as a reason why they should adhere to the truth— 
‘‘we are members one of another.” He does not here say, as 
some suppose, lie not against or about one another, that is, to 
the damage of one another; but his meaning is, in all your com- 
munications among yourselves never depart from the truth. 

The connection of the following clause is best ascertained 
by adherence to the literal meaning of the participle, ἀπεκ- 


Polybius, viii. 13, 8; Plut. de lib, Educ. 14. 


COLOSSIANS III. 9. 227 


dvoduevor— having put off the old man with his deeds.” 
The Vulgate gives exwentes in the present time, and is fol- 
lowed by Luther, Bengel, Storr, De Wette, and Huther. The 
putting off of the old man, as described by the aorist, cannot 
be contemporary with the foregoing imperatives, but it pre- 
cedes them. It is a process consummated, and so Calvin, Biihr, 
Béhmer, and Meyer, rightly understand it. Beza says cor- 
rectly, that the participles are used αἰτιολογικῶς. These par- 
ticiples are not to be taken in the sense of imperatives, as the 
first class of expositors virtually regards them, but they unfold 
a reason why the sins condemned should be uniformly 
abstained from. Lie not one to another, as being persons who 
have put off the old man; or, as the participle has often a 
causal sense—since ye have put off the old man with his 
deeds.- De Wette says that such an argument is superfluous, 
but surely the paragraph may conclude as it began, with an 
argument. The first argument is, ye are dead; and the second 
contains one of the results of that spiritual death with Christ. 
᾿Απεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν 
avrovu—“ Since ye have put off the old man with his deeds.” 
The expressive personality—‘“ old man”—has been explained 
under Ephes. iv. 22. It is a bold personification of our first 


1 We had forgot to mention an extraordinary interpretation of this verb, ἀπεκδύομαι, 
as it occurs in ii. 15. Dr. Donaldson, in his book of capricious and destructive criti- 
cism, called “ Jashar’’ (London, 1855), in vindication of certain views which he enter- 
tains of the character of humanity in general, and of Christ in particular, to wit, His 
liability to temptation, justifies his theology by quoting the verse referred to. pp. 70, 71. 
After affirming, with no little vaunt, that all interpreters up to himself have misunder- 
stood it, he says, that it must have the same meaning as in iii. 9. He gives the fol- 
lowing exegesis—‘“‘ the principalities and powers” are the potent lords of lust—duces 
libidinum—which rule in our members, and stuck to Christ like the poisoned shirt of 
Nessus, and these He conquered and led in triumph.” Not to say, with Mr. Perrowne, 
that the exegesis is ‘‘sheer nonsense,” and contrary to the entire meaning of the 
terms, the strain and spirit of the context, and to Paul’s theology, we simply reply, 
that the acute and learned author of the New Cratylus may see that God, and not 
Christ, is the subject, and that if dxxddo~a: must there denote ‘the putting off from 
himself” something which clings to the agent, the affirmation of the verse is at utter 
variance with the purity and spirituality of the Divine Being. Nay, more, Dr. 
Donaldson says, that ‘the principalities and powers,” those lords of lust which so 
clung to Christ that they were only flung off by Him when He died, were and must 
have been in Christ, for they were “created in Him,’’ according to Col. i. 16, Is 
there any wonder that previous commentators never came to such conclusion ? 


Nw 


228 COLOSSIANS III. 10. 


nature as derived from Adam, the source and seat of original 
and actual transgression, and called “old,” as existing prior to 
our converted state. This ethical person is to be put off from us 
as one puts off clothes, and with all his deeds—all the practices 
which characterized him, and the sins to which he excited. 
This was a change deeper by far than asceticism could ever 
reach. For it was a total revolution. Self-denial in meats 
and drinks, while it prunes the excrescence, really helps the 
growth of the plant, but this uproots it. 

(Ver. 10.) Καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον. 
As the old man is thrown off the new man is assumed. In 
the Epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle inserts between the 
off-putting and the on-putting a clause in reference to renewal 
‘in the spirit of the mind,” and there using a different adjective 
he calls the new man τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, but he had pre- 
viously used the verb ἀνανεοῦσθαι. Here, he says τὸν νέον 
[ἄνθρωπον], but he adds τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον. So that though 
it be in different forms, both terms are employed in both 
places. If the verbal term from νέος be followed by the epi- 
thet καινός in Ephesians, and if in Colossians the epithet νέος 
be followed by the verbal term from καινός, it is plain that the 
same general meaning is intended by the apostle. Though νέος 
and καινός may be distinguished, their meaning is thus blended. 
If νέος be “recent,” and in this sense be opposed to παλαιός, 
then this recency springs from renewal. The one man is old, 
for he belonged to a past and former state; and the other is 
new, for his assumption was to them but a novelty, a matter 
of yesterday in their spiritual experience. 

This man is new not only in point of time, but of quality or 
character, for he is renewed—eic ἐπίγνωσιν. It is not the idea 
of Paul in this expression, that the new man, still renewing, 
never grows old, ἥτις οὐ παλαιοῦται---ἃ5 the Greek expositors 
imagine. Rather would we say, with Calovius, that he is called 
“e-novatus, because he was once novus at his first creation,” 
and as the preposition ava would fairly seem to imply. Man 
must be brought back to his original purity, but the process of 
renovation is continuous, as the use of the present participle in- 
dicates. Bihr quotes Augustine as saying—in ipso animo renati 
non est perfecta novitas. We cannot take the participle to be 


COLOSSIANS IIL. 10. 229 


simply a predicate of ἄνθρωπον, for the construction points out 
its connection with νέον. The new man (the present participle 
being used) is renewing, as the apostle affirms—ijpuépa καὶ 
ἡμέρᾳ---ἶνι 2 Cor. iv. 16; or, as Theophylact says, ἀεὶ καὶ ἀεὶ. 

In the phrase εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν, the preposition cannot signify 
the instrumental cause of the renewal, but it denotes the final 
purpose. The new man is renewed “unto knowledge.” The 
meaning of ἐπέγνωσις may be seen under Ephes. i. 17; and 
in this epistle,i.9; 1. 2. And that perfect knowledge has a 
close connection with God, for it is characterized as being— 

Kaz εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν---“ After the image of Him 
who created him.” <A large number of expositors connect the 
clause directly with the participle ἀνακαινούμενον, the image 
of God being the pattern after which the believer is renewed. 
Meyer joins it more closely to εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν, but the meaning 
is not materially different. The likeness is renewed after the 
image of God, and the special feature of that image selected 
by the apostle is knowledge. The knowledge of the renewed 
man corresponds in certain elements to that of God. Other 
features of resemblance of a moral nature are referred to in 
the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24. That image is said to 
belong to God the creator, not Christ, as was supposed in the 
early church, and as is understood by Miiller. A peculiar 
exegesis is adopted by a-Lapide and Schleiermacher, the 
former making τοῦ κτίσαντος the object of the knowledge ; 
and the latter thus explaining the image—so erneuet, dass 
man an thin das Ebenbild Gottes erkennen kann. 

But what creation is referred to? Is it the first or the 
second creation? Many incline to the first view, as if the 
apostle meant that man is brought back to that likeness which 
God gave him on the day of creation. So Calovius, Heinsius, 
Estius, Schoettgen, and De Wette. But though this be a truth, 
it is not that precise form of truth conveyed by the apostle’s 
language. It is not of man, generally, but of the new man 
that he speaks—the new man renewed unto knowledge after 
the image of Him who created him, to wit, the new man. 
The apostle does not say—who created you. The new man 
is the converted spiritual nature, not the man himself in pro- 
per person. It is this creation of the new man, not that of the 


230 COLOSSIANS III. 10. 


man himself, which is ascribed to God. ‘Thus, the parallel 
passage in Ephes. iv. 24, says expressly—‘‘the new man 
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” 
This new nature is of God, and not of self-development. All 
creation is indeed from God, and this new creation is no ex- 
ception. The new man is not the ethical symbol of a mere 
reformation which a strong will may achieve; nor is it any 
change of creed, party, or opinions, which is the result of 
personal examination and conviction. These are but as 
statuary, compared with living humanity, for however close 
the resemblance, there is always, in spite of highest art, the 
still eye and the motionless lip. Yes, God’s work is a living 
power, something so compact and richly endowed, so fitted 
to our nature, and so much a part of us as to be called a man, 
but at the same time so foreign to all previous powers and 
enjoyments as to be called the new man. 

As the first man was made by God, and in His image, so is 
this new man. The special point of resemblance stated is 
knowledge. This may have been selected, as an allusion to 
the boasted knowledge and proud philosophy of the false 
teachers in Colosse. u. 2. There are, it is true, many points 
in which our relative knowledge shall never, and can never, 
resemble the absolute Divine omniscience. But as the Spirit 
is the source of our knowledge, no one can predict what 
amount of it, or what forms of it He may communicate when 
the mind is freed from every shadow and bias, and is sur- 
rounded with an atmosphere of universal truth. Human lan- 
guage is necessarily an imperfect vehicle of thought, and it 
may then be dispensed with. ‘Now we see through a glass 
darkly, but then face to face,’—our conceptions shall resemble 
God’s in fulness and truth; for no dim medium of intellectual 
vision shall shade or disturb our views. Immediate cognition 
shall also be our privilege—‘ now we know in part, but then 
shall we know, even as we are known.” 

In accordance with that strange theory by which Miiller 
would account for the origin of sin—a theory at once above 
the domain of consciousness and beyond the limits of Scrip- 
ture, he denies that there is any biblical warrrant for the idea 
that man, having lost the image of God by the fall, has it 


COLOSSIANS III. 10. 231 


restored to him under the gospel by the renovating influence 
of the Spirit of God. His notion of ἃ pre-temporal state, in 
which man fell, when, how, or where, he does not say, neces- 
sitates him to the conclusion, that when Adam fell, man 
lost nothing, but that there was only awakened in him 
the consciousness of a previous want and deficiency, so that 
sinful principles already within him acquired universal domin- 
ion over the human race. A transition, on the part of Adam, 
from an absolutely pure state into one of sin, is not, he holds, 
necessarily contained in the inspired record. ‘The narrative 
of the first sin, as well as the description of that condition 
which preceded it, does not of necessity lead us to any further 
idea than that of an initial state in which sin has not yet made 
its appearance,” and does not imply, “that Adam through his 
fall implanted in human nature a principle previously foreign 
to 10.  Miiller’s inference, of course, is, that it cannot be 
properly said that the Divine image is restored to man, seeing 
that on earth, at least, he never possessed it. The passage 
before us, and the parallel passage in Ephes. iv. 24, certainly 
affirm that the new man is the reflection of the Divine image 
in some of its features. They do not, indeed, affirm, in as 
many words, that he becomes possessed of the same Divine 
image which he once enjoyed. But the statement is virtually 
implied. Had man never this Divine image, and does he 
enjoy it for the first time through faith in Christ? ‘The new 
man,” Miiller says, “is the holy form of human life which 
results from redemption.” Now, not to say that the very idea 
of redemption, reconciliation, or renewal, implies a restoration 
to some previous state in which none of them was needed, 
there being in that state no penalty to be ransomed from, no 
enmity to be subdued, and no impurity to be cleansed away 
—let us see what revelation teaches as to man’s primeval con- 
dition and his possession of the Divine image. 

The idea of ‘‘non-temporal sinfulness” we must discard as a 
speculation about which Scripture is completely silent, and 
which, shifting the lapse of ideal humanity beyond the period 
of paradise, only shifts back the difficulty in proportion, but 


1 Lehre von der Siinde, vol. ii. p. 483, &c. 3d ed. Breslau, 1849. 


232 COLOSSIANS IIL. 10. 


does not explain it. In Gen. 1, 26, 27; and v. 1, we are 
told that man was created in the image and likeness of God, 
but no formal explanation of the phraseology is attached. 
Opinions have varied as to the meaning of the peculiar phrase; 
some, like Pott, Rosenmiiller, and von Bohlen, placing it 
almost in physical form, rising scarcely as high as the heathen 
Ovid ;’ some regarding it as a general expression of the dignity 
of the race, ike Herder, Schumann, Delitzsch, and Knobel ;? 
others, finding in it the idea of dominion over the lower crea- 
tures—like Ephrem, Grotius, and Tuch; and others, as Calvin, 
and the majority of the Reformers and Theologians, regarding it 
too exclusively as the symbol of spiritual capacities and powers. 
But what do we gather from Scripture? In the edict against 
murder, Gen. ix. 6, the atrocity of the crime is taught by the 
doctrine, that “ ἴῃ the image of God made He man.” On this 
express account the life of animals formally delivered into 
man’s hand for meat, has not the sacredness of human life. 
Further, the apostle James (111. 9) exposes the rashness and 
inconsistency of sins of the tongue, blessing God in one breath, 
and in another cursing man “made after the similitude of 
God.” If man did not still retain this image of God, there 
would be no sin either in killing or cursing him. Therefore, this 
image referred to is something altogether independent of the 
fact or development of sin in man’s nature, for it is still pos- 
sessed, and ought to shield him from violence and anathema. 
This image, so unaffected by the fall, plainly results from 
man’s position as a creature. His physical formation is not 
only noble and supreme, but as a rational and immortal 
creature, and as God’s representative to the lower creation, he 
bears the image of God. These endowments yet remain to him. 
He has not been degraded from the erectness of his mien, nor 
have reason and immortality been penally wrested from him. 
And thus through. himself he still learns what God 15, or rather, 
is enabled to comprehend lessons on the nature and attributes 


1 Animal mentisque capacius altae, et gucd dominari in caetera posset. Also Cicero, 
De natura Deorum, i. 32. Pythagoras could say, as reported by Diogenes Laertius, 
that there is a relationship between men and the gods, because men are partakers 
of the Divine principle. Dio. L. p. 584, ed. Is. Casaubon. Xenophon, Mem. i. 4, 14. 

2 Als beseelte Feinheit. Knobel, die Genesis erkldrt, p. 18. 


COLOSSIANS III. 10. 233 


of God by the analogies of his own mental and spiritual con- 
stitution. For, when he is told that God knows or loves, he 
naturally and necessarily forms his ideas of the Divine know- 
ledge or affection, by feeling what these properties are within 
himself, and by inferring what they must be when resident 
in an infinite and unchanging essence. Or if he be informed 
that God is a person, his own conscious and unmerging in- 
dividuality leads him at once to attach a correct and definite 
meaning to the term, and he is in himself a living witness 
against Pantheistic folly and delusion. 

But is this all that.is meant by the Divine image? Miiller 
says, that it simply consists in “ personal essence,”' and that 
man is thereby distinguished from other classes of existences. 
But we apprehend that the expression reaches deeper than this. 
There are certain properties or privileges which man has for- 
feited by the fall, and which are affirmed to have been ori- 
ginally possessed or enjoyed by him. Ignorance and spiritual 
death now characterize him. But is not spiritual intelligence 
a portion of the Divine image—the reflection of God’s own 
light? There is also what the apostle, Ephes. iv. 18, calls “the 
life of God,” and from that we are now alienated; but would 
that mere personal essence on which Miiller insists, bear any 
resemblance to God at all, if such vitality did not fill it? A 
personal essence with the gloom of ignorance within it, and 
the eclipse of death upon it, could not be recognized as bear- 
ing the Divine image. Therefore, a mere personality devoid 
of such intelligence and life, could scarcely be called the image 
of God, or regarded as constituting the whole of it. And yet, 
though they formed a portion of that image, they have been 
lost by the fall, and are reconferred only in Christ. Besides, can 
any one bear the moral image of God and not be happy—not 
be a partaker of His immortal blessedness? But dissatisfaction 
and misery are the doom of fallen humanity, everywhere, and 
at all times. 

That man was once filled with wisdom, purity, life, and 
happiness, appears to be the repeated statement of Scripture. 
The theory of Miiller consistently says, man never had these on 


! Persinliches Wesen. 


284 COLOSSIANS IIL. 10. 


earth, and therefore could not lose them. But the narrative 
of Genesis, though it do not treat the subject dogmatically, 
presents the picture of an innocent creature, tempted by the 
serpent, and doomed for his apostacy to toil and death. Does 
Prof. Miiller believe that the sin of man in an ideal ante- 
creational state was followed by no penalty? Or was the 
penalty of this kind, that the sinner was only subjected to 
another trial in another sphere, with the sad certainty that the 
germs of evil would ripen into fatal action? ‘The narrative in 
Genesis must be interpreted in the light of the other and sub- 
sequent Scriptures, and they plainly teach that Adam’s trans- 
gression is the primary source of prodigious spiritual loss. 

Our belief, therefore, is, that the Divine image, in which 
man was made, consists of more than personal essence, or 
dominion over the inferior creatures. These, indeed, belong 
to it, and are still retamed by man. The gospel, therefore, has 
no effect upon them save to hallow them. Man did not forfeit 
manhood by his fall, and of necessity, what is essential to his 
manhood and his position still belongs to him. For his crea- 
tional relationship to the God above him and the existences 
beneath him, could not be impaired, or his annihilation or meta- 
morphosis would have been the result. But while manhood 
has not been lost, its nobler characteristics, without which the 
original image would have been imperfect, have been obliter- 
ated. What belongs to constitution, fallen man has retained ; 
what belongs to quality and character has gone from him. 
The latter is a portion of the image as much as the former; 
the image, not of a Divine essence, but of an intelligent, holy, - 
and blessed Divine person. And those features of the image 
which have been lost through the fall, are given back to the 
disciples of Christ. 

We do not base any argument on the statement that the fallen 
Adam begat a son in his own image, whereas the Creator made 
man in His image. Nor do we imagine that any such notion of 
a double image of God, one essential and incapable of loss, and 
another moral and liable to be erased, can be found at all in 
the use of the two terms ox and my, as they are both sepa- 
rated and interchanged in the sacred record. Nor have we 
begged the question by arguing back from the verse before us, 


COLOSSIANS III. 11. 235 


and assuming from the image of the new man created by God, 
what the image of the first man created by Him must have been. 
For the apostle does not say that the new man is renewed 
in knowledge after Him who originally created humanity, but 
after the image of Him who creates himself—the new man. 
Indeed, the image conferred in renovation, though generically 
the same, cannot be in all points identical with that given in 
ereation. It is fuller and lovelier, a richer intelligence with 
nobler objects of cognition; a higher form of life, having its 
type in the normal man—the second Adam; both reaching 
forward to a development to which neither means nor scope 
could have been found in Eden, or in simple connection with 
the first man, who is “of the earth, earthy.” In fine, we are 
not sure, if Miiller’s theory does not contain, by implication, 
what- we have advanced. In illustrating the declaration of 
Paul, that “in God we live, move, and have our being,” he says 
—‘ God has willed man to be like Himself, in order that there 
“might be a being which should be capable of fellowship with 
Him.” But surely mere personality could not of itself consti- 
tute such a likeness, or lead inherently to such a communion. 
It must possess other qualities than simple consciousness to 
give it this resemblance, and fit it for this enjoyment of Him. 
Therefore, these qualities, as we have contended, did, and 
must belong to this first image, and being lost in the fall, are, 
and must be restored to the second image, which characterizes 
and beautifies the “‘new man.” 

(Ver. 11.) “Ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι “Ἑλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος---“ Where there 
is neither Greek nor Jew.” The first adverb refers to the pre- 
ceding clause, “‘in which sphere of renewal,” or simply, the idea 
of locality being so far sunk, “in which thing;” as in 2 Pet. 
ii. 11; Prov. xxvi.20. The peculiar term, ἔνι, is supposed by 
many to be the contracted form of ἔνεστι. Phavorinus defines it 
by ἐστίν, ὑπάρχει. Others regard it as the simple preposition 
in the Ionic form; ‘the notion of the verb,” as Kiihner says, 
“being so subordinate that it is dropt.” Such is the view of 
Robinson, Buttmann, and Winer, &c. But in this place the 
idea of the preposition is already expressed by ὅπου. There 
is also the analogy of other prepositions similarly used, such 
as ἔπι ἃ πάρα. Perhaps the supposition of the Htymologicum 


250 COLOSSIANS IIL 11. 


Magnum is correct, that ἔνι 15 elliptical, leaving the reader to 
supply what part of the verb the syntax requires. In all the 
places of the New Testament where it is used it is preceded 
by οὐκ, and expresses a strong negation. Gal. 111. 28; Jas. 1. 
17. There is, probably, in the phrase, the idea also of, imner 
existence—where there does exist any imner distinction of 
Greek or Jew. 

The apostle now specifies various mundane distinctions. 

Ἕλλην καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, 
Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος. The first pair is the natural dis- 
tinction of “Greek and Jew.” The noun ἕλλην, as opposed 
to βάρβαρος, means a Greek proper, and as opposed to 
Ἰουδαῖος, signifies one belonging to the Greek world, and 
perhaps viewing that world as the representative of that 
civilized heathenism which was brought into close and ex- 
tensive correspondence with Palestine. Rom. i. 14, 16; 
ii. 9; Gal. 11. 28. The noun ᾿Ιουδαΐος means a Jew, origi- 
nally and merely one of the tribe of Judah; but latterly 
as that tribe on its return from Babylon was so ascendant, it 
came to denote any one of the Hebrew race. ‘There is no 
ground for the idea of the Greek expositors that ἕλλην means 
a proselyte; and ᾿Ιουδαῖος a native Jew—éx πρόγονων, as 
Chrysostom has it. The second couple of epithets poimts out 
a religious distinction—zepirom) καὶ ἀκροβυστία, “circumcision 
and uncireumcision.” The “circumcision” is the Jewish world, 
as Abraham’s progeny, with the seal of the covenant in its 
flesh, and distinguished by its theocratic privileges, while 
the “uncircumcision” is non-Israel, or all the world beyond 
the chosen seed, and destitute of religious blessing. It has 
been said that the apostle uses four pairs of terms, but he drops 
the use of the καί, and there is no contrast between [βάρβαρος 
- Σκύθης. --“ barbarian—Scythian.” While the epithet axgo- 
βυστία applied to the whole world beyond Israel — there 
were various distinctions in that world itself: The Hellenic 
section was elevated by refinement and culture, but other 
portions were debased and wretched. The two terms now 
under review appear to differ only in intensity. The Scythian 
is one at the lowest point of barbarism—as we might say— 
a negro, or even a Hottentot—a savage, or even a Bushman. 


COLOSSIANS III. 11. 25 


The Scythian races, represented by the modern Tartar or Cos- 
sack races of Asia and Eastern Europe, were regarded as at 
the bottom of the scale. Scythians, according to Josephus, 
were βραχὺ τῶν θηρίων cuapépovrec'—while Herodotus calls 
them cannibals—av0owrogpayot. Cicero against Piso uses a 
quod nullus in Barbaria, quis hoe facit ulla in 
Scythia tyrannus? The next two terms represent a social 
distinction, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος ---“ bond, free,” a distinction 
very common in those countries and times. Some manu- 
scripts, and those of high authority, insert a καί before ἐλεύ- 
θερος, such as A, D', E, F, G. It might be used as in the two 
first couplets, for there is a contrast. There are thus three 
forms of distinction expressed, and one implied—national dis- 
tinction, religious distinction, and social distinction; and there 
is also implied the secular distinction between civilization and 
savagism. The apostle completes his thoughts by adding— 
᾿Αλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Xpiordc—“ But Christ is all 
and in all.” The phrase is idiomatic. Christ is everything 
to all of them having the new man. To one and all of them 
He is everything, so far as the sufficiency, offer, and enjoy- 
ment of salvation are concerned, or as the apostle says in the 
similar passage in Galatians, “ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” 

Now, the meaning of the apostle is not that a man loses na- 
tionality on becoming a Christian; or that social rank is obliter- 
ated by admission into the church. The blood of Javan was 
not changed in a Greek, nor the blood of Abraham in a Jew, 
when both met in the spiritual kingdom. The rude manners of 
the Scythian might be refined by his faith, but he did not lose 
his peculiarity of colour or configuration. The chain of the 
slave was not broken by his religion any more than the cir- 
cumcision of the Jew was erased. But the meaning of the 
apostle is— 

First, That such distinctions do not prevent the on-putting 
of the new man. In other words, such differences of nation, 
religion, culture, and social position, do not interfere with the 
adaptation, the offer, or the reception and the results of the 
gospel. It is fettered by no geographical limits, by no local 


similar climax 


1 Contra Ap. 2, 37. 


238 COLOSSIANS III. 11. 


or lineal peculiarities. The Greek is not nearer Christ for his 
philosophy, nor the Scythian more distant for his want of it. 
The incision of the ceremonial knife gave no preference to the 
Jew, nor was the absence of it any drawback to the Gentile. 
The slave was as welcome as the freeman—the wandering no- 
made as the polished citizen. Whatever a man’s descent or 
race, his creed or rites; whatever his language or pursuits, his 
colour or climate, his dwelling or usages, his position or 
character—the gospel comes to him with special offer, and 
adaptation, and completeness, and having embraced it he will 
feel its renewing power. It does not insist on the Gentile 
submitting to the Abrahamic rite, nor require the Jew to be 
initiated into the wisdom of the Greek; it does not stand aloof 
from the slave till he burst his chain, nor does it command the 
barbarian to master an alphabet or win the civic franchise ere 
it can save and change him. No; it comes alike to the 
synagogue and to the temple, with equal fitness to freedom 
and to servitude; with equal fulness, freeness, and tenderness 
to the citizen in the forum and to the wanderer on the wide 
and solitary steppe. All adventitious distinctions are levelled 
at its just and loving glance. 

Secondly, It is taught by the apostle, that in the church, 
the sphere of the new man’s activity and enjoyments, prior 
and external distinctions do not modify the possession of 
spiritual privilege and blessmg. In the spiritual common- 
wealth, no partition is erected between Jew and Greek; the 
barbarian is not degraded to a lower seat, nor is any outer 
court appropriated for the Scythian. The slave does not 
obtrude though he mingle his voice in the same song of 
spiritual freedom with his master, and drink out of the same 
sacramental cup. ‘The Tartar in his sheepskin may kneel with 
the citizen in his mantle, and each break with the other that 
bread which is “the communion of the body of Christ.” Nay, 
the faith of the untutored savage may be more earnest, child- 
like, and fearless in its reliance; may be a fuller source of 
gladness and triumph than the faith of him whose philosophy 
may have prompted him to ask other reasons than Scripture 
may have given, and to fortify his belief with arguments which 
the simple disciple did not want, and could not understand. 


COLOSSIANS ΤΠ. 12. 239 


O it needs not that one enjoy the erudition of the schools 
in order to be taught of God! The graces of civilization 
are not the necessary soil for the graces of the Spirit. 
Secular enfranchisement is not indispensable to fellow- 
citizenship with the saints. In the sphere of the new 
man, those distinctions which obtain in the world exercise 
no disturbing or preventive influence. That new man has 
broken all the ties of the old man, and is not more akin to 
one race than to another, has no affinities of blood, is not cir- 
eumscribed by national boundaries, or forbidden by the 
inequalities of social rank, and by whomsoever assumed, he 
may be fully possessed. This is the glory of Christianity, 
that as it is developed in the church, it has none of the 
barriers or predilections which the epithets of this verse indi- 
cate as obtaining in the world, and dividing it into jealous and 
exclusive ranks and castes, but is at once and fully enjoyed by 
all the believing possessors of our common humanity. The 
idea of Theophylact, that the verse refers to the absence of 
distinctions in the other world, is wholly opposed to the scope 
and context. 

The apostle now particularizes certain graces which they 
were to assume. He had specified the sins which marked the 
old man, and now he signalizes those virtues which are con- 
nected with the new man. Ye have put on the new man, 
and ye enjoy the all-sufficiency of Christ—therefore, οὖν, ye 
must manifest your possession of the following elements of 
Christian character— 

(Ver. 12.) "Evdtcacbe οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἅγιοι καὶ 
ἠγαπημένοι---“ Put on, therefore, as the chosen of God, holy 
and beloved.” While οὖν refers back to one argument, we 
carries the mind forward to another. In the epithet ἐκλεκτοί 
we recognize the fact of their separation from the world, or 
the realization in their present state of God’s eternal and 
gracious choice. We incline, with Meyer and Lachmann, to 
regard ἐκλεκτοί as the substantive, and the other two epithets 
as its predicates. Others, as Luther, Calvin, Biihr, Huther, 
and De Wette, reverse this exegesis, and take the two follow- 
ing words as co-ordinate substantives. But it is better to take 
ἐκλεκτοί as describing their present position, and ἅγιοι and 


240 COLOSSIANS IIT. 12. 


ἠγαπημένοι as specifying its character, for election is not deter- 
mined by character, but determines it. [Ephes. 1. 4,5.] The 
meaning of ἅγιοι is consecrated, set apart to God, this consecra- 
tion necessarily producing holiness of life. This is an appeal to 
their character, and not simply to their position in the visible 
church. [Ephes.i.1.] They were also the objects of God’s 
special complacency—“ beloved.” His eternal and sovereign 
love did elect them, and now, that election having taken 
effect, He has special complacency in them. Their assump- 
tion of these graces would certify to themselves their election, 
would be a happy development of their consecration, as well 
as a proof of its genuineness, and would also endear them yet 
more to Him, who in love had predestinated them to the 
adoption of children. These thoughts formed a convincing 
appeal to them, and could not but induce them to feel and 
act as the apostle recommends. And so they are enjoined 
to put on— 

Σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ. The singular of the last word is 
preferred to the plural on the authority of A, C, D®, E, F, 6. 
The singular is also found in several places of the Septuagint. 
Dan. ix. 18; Zech. i. 16. The phrase is a Hebraism, corres- 
ponding to the Hebrew—o»n. Gesen. Lehrg. pp. 671. The 
following genitive, oixrippov, gives a specific intensity to 
the clause; it makes it ἐμφατικότερον, as Chrysostom says; 
since the first word of itself might denote kind or merciful 
emotion. Lukei. 78. The Colossians were not to cherish a 
hard and unrelenting disposition, that was slow to remit 
punishment, but forward ever to inflict it. 

Οἰκτιρμός, from οἵ----οἶκτος has more reference to feeling, or 
commiseration; while the second term, χρηστότητα, kindness, 
is, as the word really implies, that form of kindness which is 
serviceable to others. Jerome describes it as—dinvitans ad 
familiaritatem sui, dulcis alloquio, moribus temperata.* “To do 
good” is the injunction, and disciples are to cherish the habit, 
and to create opportunities for it. Christians are to be oblig- 
ing in their general demeanour. The last three terms are 
found in the same order in Ephes. iv. 2. Ταπεινοφροσύνη is 


1 Com. in Ep. ad Gal. ν. 22. 


COLOSSIANS III 12. 241 


lowliness of mind, opposed to haughtiness and conceit. The 
adjective, ταπεινός, is used often in the classics to denote 
“mean-spirited.” ‘Trench has the excellent remark, that “Chry- 
sostom is bringing pride under the disguise of humility, when 
he characterizes humility as the making of ourselves small 
when we are great, for it is the esteeming of ourselves small 
because we are so.”! As the same writer well remarks, “the 
idea of such a grace is wholly Christian,’ for the gospel leads 
man to a feeling of entire and unalterable dependence upon 
God.” Augustine eulogizes this grace by saying, that if 
asked quae via sit ad obtinendam veritatem? he will reply 
primum est humilitas, quid secundum, humilitas, quid tertium, 
humilitas, ἄς. Calvin remarks on the connection, that the 
graces previously mentioned cannot be cherished without it. 
The next term is πραότης, meekness. We cannot fully 
acquiesce in Mr. Trench’s idea, that this word describes 
“exercises of mind which are first and chiefly toward God, or 
is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with 
us without disputing or resisting.” Neither he, nor Ellicott,* 
who follows him, has produced any direct scriptural instance of 
such a sense, though certainly he who is truly meek will 
always bow to God in serene resignation. He who, under the 
influence of Divine grace, does not resent a human injury, will 
not quarrel with any Divine allotment. But πραότης is here 
ranked among graces which have specially human relations, 
such as mercy and long-suffering. Even in ταπεινοφροσύνη, 
the idea is man-ward fully as much as God-ward. In the place 


1 New Testament Synonyms, ὃ 42. 

2 The statement may not at first sight appear to be correct to its full extent. 
schylus, Prometh. Vinct. makes Oceanus bring the following charge against Pro- 
metheus—ov δ᾽ οὐδέπω ταπεινός---ποῦ even yet are you humble; that is, thou hast 
not learned submission by thy punishment. A similar result, viz. that of submis- 
siveness, is said by Plutarch to be, in fact, the end of Divine chastisement—rarisvos 
καὶ κατάφοβος πρὸς τὸν Θεόν---7)6 sera numinis vindicatione, cap. iii. Instances also 
may be found in Plato—@uvireras ramr-ivis καὶ xexoounutvos—Leges, iv. p. 113, vol. 
viii, ed, Bekker, and in other places, Ast, Lew. Platon. sub voce. Still, the idea in 
these places seems to be that of a sense of lowliness inwrought by some depressing 
event, and forced upon the mind by some painful contrast. This is not the habitual 
grace of Christian humility, for a man who may feel himself to be deeply humiliated, 
will yet only recoil into a fiercer pride, and be far, far, indeed, from being humble. 

3 Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians, iv. 2. London, 1855. 

R 


242 COLOSSIANS III. 18. 


it here occupies in the range of virtues, it denotes that want of 
arrogance or insolence in reference to our fellow-men, which 
lowliness before God ever tends to produce and increase. 
Μακροθυμία is literally “long-mindedness,” and is opposed to 
what we often call shortness of temper. The whole terms of 
the text receive further illustration in the subsequent clauses. 

Now, these virtues certainly suit—wc—“ the elect of God, 
holy and beloved.” They are in source and essence an imita- 
tion on the part of the saint of what God has felt toward bem- 

zself, and they indicate a consciousness of the relation which ‘he 
sustains to the Divine benefactor. For he has experienced the 
Divine mercy in its sweep and fulness—there was no frown on 
the Divine countenance, when he so abject, insignificant, and 
withal so provoking and guilty, drew near. God has crowned 
him “with loving-kindness and tender mercy ;” and though he 
be daily sinning, daily coming short of duty, nay ever com- 
mitting positive faults, he is borne with, and he has been long 
borne with, as “sentence against an evil work has not been 
speedily executed.” Must he not therefore act toward his 
fellows on the same level with himself, as God from the heights 
of His glory has acted towards him? And there is need for 
the exercise of such virtues, for ‘offences must come ;” or, as 
the apostle intimates in the next clause— 

(Ver. 13.) ᾿Ανεχόμενοι ἀλλήλλων, καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς; 
ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν----““ Forbearing one another, and 
forgiving one another, if any one have a complaint against 
any other.” The meaning of the first participle has been 
illustrated under Ephes. iv. 2, and we need not in this place 
repeat the illustration. The sense is, having patience with 
one another—waiting with composure under injury or pro- 
vocation, till those who so offend may come to a better 
mind. The other participle, χαριζόμενοι, carries forward 
the sense—not only are we to forbear, but we are also to 
forgive. Not only are we to show humility, meekness, and 
long-suffering as we forbear, but we are also to manifest 
bowels of mercy and goodness in forgiving. The second par- 
ticiple, χαριζόμενθι, is found in a passage almost parallel, in 
Ephes. iv. 32, and it also occurs in the same sense in ii. 13 of 
this epistle. The pronoun, ἑαυτοῖς, is simply for ἀλλήλοις; 


COLOSSIANS III. 13. 243 


and the noun μομφή denotes “ ground of offence or complaint,” 
explained in some of the Codices by the substitution of ὀργή. 
There may be just ground of offence, but it is not to excite to 
resentment or retaliation. And the apostle proposes for 
imitation the highest of examples. 

Καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς. Χαρ- 
ιζόμενοι is to be supplied, and not the imperative, χαρίζεσθε, 
with some, nor yet ποιεῖτε, as is found in some MSS. such 
as D', E', Εἰ G. The conjunction occurs twice, for the sake 
of intensity (Klotz, ad Devar. 635), and καθὼς καὶ introduces 
an argumentative illustration. In a corresponding passage in 
the Epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle makes reference to 
God—“ forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake 
has forgiven you.” iv. 82. This difference of person in the 
two places seems to have suggested the various readings 
which occur in the old copies. Not a few of them have κύριος, 
such as A, B, D’, F, G, and those appear to be almost equal 
in authority to C, D*, E, J, K, which have Χριστός, a reading 
supported, however, by many of the Versions and Fathers. 
But here forgiveness is specially ascribed to Christ. If Christ 
forgive sin, the inference is, that He is Divine. Pardon is a 
Divine prerogative, yet Christ exercises it. And it is not on 
His part a venturesome act, nor one which is provisional, and 
cannot take effect till it receive the sanction of the Father, 
but it is at once full, decided, and final. The Saviour gave the 
paralytic patient a complex benefit in a single act, when he 
said to him as he lay helpless on a couch at His feet, “Thy 
sins be forgiven thee.” And if Christ forgive sin, he is en- 
titled to do so, for He has made provision for it in His suffer- 
ings and death. May He not Himself dispense the fruits of 
His atonement and pardon those for whom He died? The 
general idea is the same as that of Ephes. iv. 32. Christians 
are to forgive one another because Christ has forgiven them, 
for His example has all the force of a formal command. They 
are also to forgive one another as He has forgiven them—fully 
and freely, at once and for ever; not pardoning seven times, 
but demurring to the seventy times seven; not insulting him 
who has injured them by the rigid exaction of a humiliating 
apology, or stinging him by a sharp and unexpected allusion 


244 COLOSSIANS III. 14. 


to his fault; not harbouring antipathy, but forgetting as well 
as forgiving; not indulging a secret feeling of cffence, and 
waiting for a moment of quiet retaliation; but expelling every 
grudge from their hearts by an honest and thorough recon- 
ciliation. Meyer expressly condemns the reference, found by 
Chrysostom and Theophylact, to the medium by which Christ 
forgives, to wit, his own death, their inference being, that we ~ 
ought to lay down our lives for others. We should also demur 
to this full form of expression on the part of these Fathers as 
being a necessary deduction here. The doctrine is found, 
however, in other parts of Scripture, as in 1 John ii. 16. 
But perhaps we may be warranted to say, that as in the case 
of Christ’s pardoning us, there was a self-denial even unto 
death—so with us, there should be self-denial too. There may 
be a painful effort, but it should be made—the foreiveness 
may cost us no little sacrifice, but we must not shrink from it. 
Such a doctrine seems to be implied, though we cannot say as 
firmly as Chrysostom, that the proper interpretation of καθώς 
demands it—rd γὰρ καθὼς, ταῦτα ἀπαιτεῖ. 

(Ver. 14.) ᾿Επὶ πᾶσι δὲ τοῦτοις τὴν ἀγάπην. The con- 
struction still depends on ἐνδύσασθε of the 12th verse. Look- 
ing at the figure implied in the verb, some, such as Gataker 
and Meyer, give to ἐπί the sense of “over,” as if the meaning 
were—on those other parts of spiritual raiment throw this, as 
an over-dress. But such an exegesis appears to press the 
figure. Nor can the preposition bear the sense which Calvin 
puts upon it of propter, that is, ye cannot exhibit these graces 
unless ye have love. ᾿Επί means “in addition to,” with the 
idea implied, that what follows is chief or best. Luke xvi. 26. 
In addition to all these, as last and best, “put on love.” 
᾿Αγάπη is the grace of love, on the beauty, propriety, and 
excellence of which the apostle so often insists. [Ephes. i. 
1, 4.] We take the next clause in its plain sense— 

Ἵ ἐστι σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος ----““ Which is the bond of 
perfectness,” that bond which unites all the graces into com- 
pleteness and symmetry. ἽἭτις is the reading of the Received 
Text, but 6 is found in such high authorities as A, B, C, F, G. 
It weakens the sense to regard the clause as a species of 
Hebraism, as if it meant “a perfect bond;” or as Erasmus 


COLOSSIANS III. 14. 245 


renders it in his paraphrase—perfectum et indissolubile vinculum. 
Such is the view of Melancthon, Vatablus, Balduin, Michaelis, 
Calovius, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, and Flatt. The 
apostle here calls love, not perfection, but its bond, or that 
which holds together all the graces which constitute it. Some, 
indeed, as Bretschneider, Bengel, Usteri, Bshmer, De Wette, 
and Olshausen, take the term in the sense of fasciculus, inbe- 
griff—not that which binds, but that which is bound up. In a 
similar sense, Calvin and Bohmer take it for summa. The two 
interpretations differ, as do the German words band and bund— 
biindel, or the English bond and bundle. ‘There is one passage 
of Herodian appealed to, where the word has such a meaning 
-- πάντα τὸν σύνδεσμον τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, the whole package or 
bundle of letters. But that is not the common meaning of the 
term, either in the classics or the New Testament. The noun 
τελειότης, as an abstract term with the article, describes moral 
perfection as a whole. Perfection consists of many graces, 
each in its own place and relations, each in its own circle 
and sphere—but they are held together by love. Did they 
exist singly, or in separate clusters, perfection would not be 
enjoyed; were they fragmentary, and not coalescent, sym- 
metry of character would be lost. 

For love is the product of the other graces, the fruit of their 
ripe development, so that in their perfect state they should 
throw around them this preserving cincture. Love itself is, 
at the same time, the highest element of this perfection, and 
forms the nearest resemblance to Him of whom it is said— 
“God is love.” It creates perfection, but here it is specially 
represented as a bond which sustains it. No grace is com- 
plete without it. Without it knowledge is but a selfish 
acquisition, purity an attempted personal gain, and zeal 
a defective struggle; uninspired by it faith is but an abor- 
tive and monopolizing grasp, and hope an exclusive antici- 
pation. Sin is essentially selfishness in a variety of forms, 
and not till such selfishness be fully put down, can the sem- 
blance of perfection be enjoyed. Love to God and to every 
one that bears His image, as the fulfilment of the law, 
imparting fervour and breadth to every grace, giving odour 
to the blossom, and being itself the fruit, is the bond of 


240 COLOSSIANS III. 14. 


perfectness. A heart replete with this love maintains all its 
spiritual acquirements in health and vigour. Bound up im this 
zone, every Christian excellence fills its own place, and keeps 
it, and the whole character is sound, does not distort itself 
by excess, nor enfeeble itself by defect. [Ephes. iv. 15; v. 2.] 

Love is thus regarded here, not as a congeries of graces, 
which make up perfection — as Bengel says — amor com- 
plectitur virtutum universitatem. It is more its office than 
itself which the apostle regards. It is not looked upon here 
as containing perfection within itself, but as so umiting the 
other graces that it gives them perfection, and keeps them in it. 
Meyer shrewdly says, that if love, as a bundle, contained all 
the other graces in it already, how could the apostle bid them 
assume love in addition to them ?—2ai πᾶσι τούτοις. If they 
were to put on all its parts, how could they assume it as some- 
thing still distinct? Huther takes the neuter 6 as referring to 
the preceding clause,—love, the putting on of which is the 
bond of perfection. But the apostle’s idea is, not that the 
putting on of the love, but that the love when put on, is the 
bond of perfectness. Our view is not unlike that of Chrysos- 
tom and Theodcret. Some of the older interpreters labour to 
reconcile the statement of the apostle with his doctrine of 
justification by faith, and Romish writers pressed them hard 
on the subject. Crocius and Schmid refer this perfection 
simply to the unity or integrity of the church, which love 
creates and preserves. But though this be not the precise 
meaning of the apostle, it is certainly included under his 
statement, and this idea, coupled with the phraseology of 
Ephes iv. 3, may have led one of the copyists to insert ἑνότητος. 
What is the bond of perfectness to an individual is also 
the bond of perfectness to a church.' [Ephes. iv. 3, 14, 15; 
v. 2.| 1 Peter ui. 8. 


1“ Let us consider that charity is a right noble and worthy thing; greatly perfec- 
tive of our nature; much dignifying and beautifying our soul. It rendereth a man 
truly great, enlarging his mind unto a vast circumference, and to a capacity near 
infinite; so that it by a general care doth reach all things, by an universal affection 
doth embrace and grasp the world. By it our reason obtaineth a field or scope of 
employment worthy of it. not confined to the slender interests of one person or one 
place, but extending to the concerns of all men. Charity is the imitation and copy 


COLOSSIANS LI, 15. 247 


The apostle still continues his exhortation— 

(Ver. 15.) Kat ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταὶς 
καρδίαις tuwv— And let the peace of Christ rule in your 
hearts.” The reading, Χριστοῦ, is preferred to the common 
one of Θεοῦ, on good authority, such as A, B, ΟἹ, D', F, G, 
and various Versions and Fathers. Some regard this peace as 
the result of the preceding admonitions—the peace of mutual 
concord. Such is the view of no less distinguished critics 
than the Greek expositors, and of Calvin, Grotius, Vatablus, 
Calovius, and Meyer. Chrysostom’s illustration is as follows:— 
“Suppose a man to have been unjustly insulted, two thoughts 
are born of the insult, the one urging him to vengeance, and 
the other to patience, and these wrestle with one another. If 
the peace of God stand as umpire, it bestows the prize on that 
which calls to endurance, and puts the other to shame.” We 
cannot embrace this exegesis, for we regard it as narrow and 
unusual. ‘“ Peace” is commonly with the apostle a far higher 
blessing than mere harmony with others, or the study of 
Christian union. It 15 with him synonymous with happiness, 
that calm of mind which is not ruffled by adversity, over- 
clouded by sin or a remorseful conscience, or disturbed by the 
fear and the approach of death. Isaiah xxvi. ὃ. This view 
is, generally, that of Luther, Bengel, De Wette, Biihr, Ols- 
hausen, and Huther. Nor is it out of harmony with the 
context. For nothing is more fatal to such “ peace” than the 
of that immense love, which is the fountain of all being and all good; which made all 
things, which preserveth the world, which sustaineth every creature; nothing advanceth 
us so near to a resemblance of Him, who is essential love and goodness; who freely and 
purely, without any regard to his own advantage or capacity of finding any beneficial 
return, doth bear and express the highest good-will, with a liberal hand pouring down 
showers of bounty and mercy on all his creatures; who daily putteth up numberless 
indignities and injuries, upholding and maintaining those who offend and provoke him. 
Charity rendereth us as angels, or peers to those glorious and blessed creatures, 
who, without receiving or expecting any reqnuital from us, do heartily desire and 
delight in our good, are ready to promote it, do willingly serve and labour for it. 
Nothing is more amiable, more admirable, more venerable, even in the common eye 
and opinion of men; it hath in it a beauty and a majesty apt to ravish every heart ; 
even a spark of it in generosity of dealing breedeth admiration, a glimpse of it in 
formal courtesy of behaviour procureth much esteem, being deemed to accomplish and 
adorn a man: how lovely, therefore, and truly gallant, is an entire, sincere, constant, 
and uniform practice thereof, issuing from pure good-will and affection.”—Barrow’s 
Works, vol. i. pp. 250, 251, Edinburgh, 1841. 


248 COLOSSIANS II. 15. 


indulgence of those foul and angry passions which the apostle 
warns them to abandon in the preceding verses, (5 to 9,) 
and there is nothing so conducive to its purity and permanence 
as the cultivation of those serene and genial graces which are 
enjoined in verses 12, 13, and 14. It is almost as if he had 
said — those vices being dropt, and those virtues “béing 
assumed, the peace of Christ shall therefore reign within you, 
and its happy sensations you will be led naturally to express 
‘in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” 

It is called “the peace of Christ,” a phrase not essentially 
different in meaning from the common one, “ peace of God.” 
It is given by Christ, or produced and perpetuated by His 
Spirit. It is the Redeemer’s own legacy —John xiv. 27, 
“My peace I give unto you; let not your hearts be troubled, 
neither let them be dismayed.” Christ has secured this peace 
in His blood as Mediator, and He has the right to dispense it 
as the result of the reconciliation or atonement. 

And such tranquillity, which in its highest aspect is Christian 
felicity, was not simply to be in their hearts, but it was to 
“rule” in them; it was not merely to have existence, but it 
was to exercise supreme command. For such is the meaning 
of βραβευέτο, as it naturally comes from its original and literal 
signification of presiding at the games, and then of distribut- 
ing the rewards of victory. Both senses have, however, been 
separately maintained by critics; Chrysostom adhering to the 
idea of adjudication—xorrijc καὶ ἀγωνοθέτης ; and Cicumenius 
employing in explanation the verb μεσιτεύειν. Calvin, Erasmus, 
and Vatablus, look upon it as the figure of a wrestler who him- 
self wins the prize—let this peace obtain the prize and keep 
it; but the view is against sound philology, for the word is 
never used of the combatant, but only of the umpire. Nor 
can we accept the view of Huther, Wahl, and Bretschneider, 
who refer generally to the idea of ββρα[βεῖον implied in ii. 18, 
and understand the apostle to say “let the peace of God confer 
its rewards upon you.” Nor is there more foundation for the 
opposite idea of Kypke, who supposes it to mean specially, 
“let the peace of God distribute the prize of love in your 
hearts.” The general and very frequent sense we have already 
assigned to the verb is preferable, and such is the opinion of 


COLOSSIANS III. 16. 249 


many commentators, supported by numerous examples. Dio- 
dorus Sic. 13, 53, &c.; Wisdom, x. 12. Loesner has collected 
many examples from Philo. This peace was to possess un- 
disputed supremacy — was to be uncontrolled president in 
their hearts. 

Ἔν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. Let it not be a state of mind 
admired or envied, but one actually possessed; let it not be 
hovering as a hoped for blessing on the outskirts of your 
spirits, but let it be within you; let it not be an occasional 
visitant, often scared away by dominant and usurping pas- 
sion, but a central power, exercising a full and unlimited 
administration. Let it so govern, and happiness will be the 
result, every source of disquietude and element of turbulence 
being destroyed. The apostle thus wished the Colossians 
highest spiritual welfare, that their souls might enjoy unbroken 
quiet. A peace, which is not the peace of Christ, is often rudely 
disturbed, for it is but a dream and a slumber in the midst of 
volcanic powers, which are employing the time in gathering up 
their energies for a more awful conflict. There is no question, 
if a man possessed and cherished the ripe consciousness of 
his interest in Christ, if he had full assurance, and felt that 
God was for him—if the elements of sinful passion, either in 
its fouler forms of sensuality, or its darker aspects of malignity, 
were subdued; and if “the gentleness of Christ” were at home 
within him, and all the graces which possess a kindred char- 
acter were around him, bound and held together by that “love 
which is the bond of perfectness,” that then he would enjoy 
a peace or a bliss second only to the elevation and felicity of 
heaven. Philip. iv. 7. And it was no audacity in them to 
seek or cultivate that peace, for to it they had been called. 

Εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε---““Ὸ which ye were also, or indeed 
were called.” This verb is often used by the apostle. Ephes. 
iv. 1. The possession of this peace was a prime end of their 
Christianity. The gospel summons a man, not to misery, but 
to happiness—not to internal discord, but to ultimate peace. 
And they were called to the possession of it— 

Ἔν ἑνὶ σώματι---“ In one body ;” not εἰς ἕν σῶμα---““ into one 
body,” that is, so as to form one body. But the meaning is, 
that they already formed one body, or that unitedly they had 


250 COLOSSIANS III. 16. 


been called to the possession of peace. And the apostle 
adds— 

Καὶ εὐχάριστοι yiveobe—“ And be ye thankful.” [Ephes. 
v. 4, 20.] Not a few take the adjective in the sense of 
friendly, as if the apostle bade them cherish amicable feelings 
to one another. This is the view of Jerome, of Calvin, 
Suicer, a-Lapide, Biihr, Steiger, and Olshausen, who give εὐχά- 
ριστοι the sense of χρηστοί in Ephes. iv. 32. Calvin renders 
amabiles sitis; and Conybeare “be thankful one to another.” 
With Huther, Olshausen, De Wette, and Meyer, we prefer the 
meaning “ thankful”—that is, towards God. The former sense 
abounds in the classics, and though the latter is found there too, 
yet it seems to be wholly contrary to the usage of the kindred 
terms in the New Testament. For there is every cause of 
thankfulness to Him who had called them to the possession of 
such peace. If that peace dwelt within them, and reigned within 
them—if Christ had at once provided it for them, and sum- 
moned them unitedly to its enjoyment, surely profound grati- 
tude was due to such a benefactor. 

(Ver. 16.) Ὃ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν πλου- 
σίως---“Τοὐ the word of Christ dwell in you richly.” Lach- 
mann and Steiger propose to read this clause parenthetically, 
and to join the previous γίνεσθε to the following participles— 
διδάσκοντες, &c. But nothing is gained by such a distribu- 
tion. For Χριστοῦ, a few authorities and Fathers read it Θεοῦ ; 
and the Coptic and Clement read κυρίου. ‘The word of 
Christ” is the gospel, the doctrine of Christ, or the truth which 
has Christ for its subject. In fact, Christ is both the οἴνου of 
the oracle and its theme. By ἐν ὑμῖν is meant, not simply 
among you—wunter euch, as Luther translates, or as De Wette 
contends. Let the Christian truth have its enduring abode 
“within you”—let it be no stranger or occasional guest in your 
hearts. Let it not be without you, as a lesson to be learned, 
but within you, as the source of cherished and permanent 
Ulumination. Let it stay within you—zAovetwe—abundantly. 
That is, let it be completely understood, or let the soul be 
fully under its influence. Let it dwell not with a scanty 
foothold, but with a large and liberal occupancy. 

Different ideas have been formed of the best mode of 


COLOSSIANS III. 16. 251 


dividing the following clauses of the verse. Our translators, 
following the Peschito, Chrysostom and Luther, Calvin, and 
Beza, add the words ‘in all wisdom” to the clause which we 
have already considered. But the idea of wisdom is better 
joined to the following clause, which refers to mutual teaching 
—‘in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another.” 
~ Our translators, too, so point the verse as to make psalms and 
hymns the material of instruction, whereas, it seems better, and 
more appropriate, to keep the clause distinct, thus— Let the 
word of Christ dwell in you richly ; in all wisdom teaching and 
admonishing one another: in psalms, hymns, and spiritual 
songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord.” 
The words ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, are thus connected as they are in 
i. 28, and such is the view, among others, of Bengel, Storr, 
Bihr, Steiger, Olshausen, and Baumgarten-Crusius. See under 
i. 28, where the participles — διδάσκοντες, καὶ νουθετοῦντες 
—oceur, though in reverse order, and where they are also 
explained. The anakoluthon which occurs in the construc- 
tion, is almost necessary, and gives special prominence to the 
ideas expressed by the participles. The duty enjoined in this 
clause has a very close connection with that enjoined in the 
preceding one. Unless the word of Christ dwelt richly 
within them, they could not fulfil this duty ; for they could not 
teach and admonish unless they knew what lessons to impart, 
and in what spirit to communicate them; but the lessons and 
the spirit alike were to be found in the gospel. Mutual 


, -) ε , ~ ΄ ~ ~ ~ 
! Tis ἐστιν ὃ λόγος Tov Xosorov ; τὰ λόγιά εἶσι τοῦ ἁγίου εὐαΊ γελίου καὶ τῶν θ:ο-- 
, ΄ τι ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oe a! 
φόρων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν θείων σπροῤητῶν: Πῶς δὲ ἐνοικεῖ ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος Tov θεοῦ ἐν 
΄ , ν - ΄ , ~o La} «“ 
πάσῃ σοφίᾳ: διὰ τῆς ὠκροάσεως καὶ ἀναγνώσεως καὶ μελέτης σῶν θείων γράφων" Orey 
ταῦτα συχνῶξ TE καὶ ἐπιμελῶ: μελετῶμεν, τότε καὶ ἡ μνήμη πληροῦται, καὶ ὃ νοῦς 
7 ee ’ > 4 ~ 
πλουτίζεται, καὶ ἡ καρδία ἐξερεύγεται, καὶ τὸ στόμα ἐκχέει πλούσια THs θείας διδασ- 
o a ων ε ὯΝ ΄ 4 =~ 
καλίας τὰ νάματα: “Heresy δὲ vives wore ὑπερηφανείας καὶ ἰδιογνωμοσύνης μελετῶντες; 
Ν δ' Ν ͵΄ὔ ~ ~ Ν 
τὰς θείας γραφὰς. πίπαουσιν εἰς σῶν αἱρέσεων τὰ βάραθρα, ἄλλοι δὲ ἀματόως καὶ 
3 ͵ ΠΑ αν, ἔτ ΄ ὧν θὰ , Rew nis \ Si Nes & λῆς 
ἀπερισκίπτως αὐτὰς ἀναγινώσκοντες, καὶ μὴ διακρίνοντες σὴν ἐντολὴν ἀπὸ τῆς συμοουλής, 
᾽ὔ , ν ~ Fe. Ν 
γίνονσι δεισιδαίμονε: καὶ κεκαυτηριασμένοι “Tay ἰδίαν συνείδησιν." διὰ τοῦτο εἶπε τῦ, 
co? ΄ δα ey ς 58 . ᾿- ~ = 
Ey πάσῃ cofig,” ἤγουν, ἵνα μετὰ π' ντὸς εἴδου; σοφίας, καὶ τῆς σπνευμαπτι»9 δη- 
΄ Νὰ 5. ~ ‘ ~ > ~ ΄ \ “ > S ΕΝ 
λονόσι καὶ τῆς σχολαστικῆς, καὶ τῆ; εὐλαθητιχῆς διαθέσεως καὶ τῆς ὀρθης διακρίσεως 
4 3 4 Ν τ ~ ~ ἊΝ 
καὶ ἀναγινώσκωμεν, καὶ μελετῶμεν σὰς Olas γραφὰς, καὶ διδάσκωμεν δὲ δὶ αὐτῶν καὶ 
ε ‘ Ν Ν Hy ΄ ΄ 
E“UTOU; καὶ ποὺς ἄλλους" ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΟΥ͂ TOY AZTPAXANIOY ΚΑΙ 


ΣΤΑΥΡΟΥΠΟΛΕΩΣ ΑΡΧΙΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ KYPIAKOAPOMION, ΤΟΜΟΣ ΠΡΩΤῸΣ, 
p. 155, EN ΑΘΗΝΑΙΣ, 1840. 


252 COLOSSIANS III, 16. 


exhortation must depend for its fitness and utility on mutual 
knowledge of the Christian doctrine. Sparing acquaintance 
with Divine revelation would lead to scanty counsel and 
ineffective tuition. 

Ψαλμοῖς ὕμνοις ῳδαῖς πνευματικοῖς EV τῇ χάριτι ἄδοντες εν 
ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν τῷ θεῷ. Both the conjunctions (καί) which 
appear in the Received Text seem, on good authority, to be 
mere euphonistic insertions. Some take the words down to 
χάριτι, as connected with the preceding participles—“ admon- 
ishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” 
Our objection is, that while metrical or musical compositions 
are not the common vehicle of instruction or admonition, they 
are specially connected with sacred song. ‘The datives, 
without the preposition, denote the materials of song. The 
phrase, ἐν τῇ χάριτι, according to Huther and De Wette, 
means “with a grateful spirit.” 1 Cor. x. 30. It appears to us 
wholly out of the question on the part of Calvin, Beza, a-Lapide, 
Biihr, and many others, to take the words as denoting εὐσχη- 
μόνως, “gracefully” —sine confusione. We prefer, with Estius, 
Steiger, and Meyer, to regard the phrase as meaning by the 
influence of grace, given, as Chrysostom remarks, by the Spirit. 
Luther joins the phrase erroneously to the preceding term. 
The following dative, τῷ θεῷ, indicates Him in honour of 
whom this sacred minstrelsy is raised, and the formula, ἐν ταῖς 
καρδίαις, describes the sincerity of the service,—the silent sym- 
phony of the heart. Tischendorf appears to us to have for- 
saken his own critical principles in retaining the singular form, 
τῇ καρδίᾳ, for he has confessedly against him A, B, ΟἹ, D', F, G, 
the Syriac which reads S/A3Ns, and the Vulgate, which has 
—in cordibus vestris. For remarks on the different terms, and 
their distinction, the reader is referred to what has been said 
by us under Ephes. v. 19. We have there said that probably 
by Psalms may be understood the Hebrew book of that name, 
so commonly used in the synagogues; that the hymns might 
be other compositions divested of Jewish imagery and theo- 
cratic allusions, and more adapted to the heathen mind; while 
the spiritual odes were freer forms of song, the effusion of per- 
sonal experience and piety, and do not simply point out the 
genus to which the entire class of such compositions belonged. 


COLOSSIANS III. 17. 253 


Still the sentiment hangs on the first clause—“ let the word 
of Christ dwell withm you nobly.” These sacred songs, 
whether in the language of Scripture, or based upon it, could 
be sung in the right spirit only when the indwelling “word” 
pressed for grateful utterance. When the gospel so possessed 
the heart as to fill it with a sense of blessing, then the lips 
might be tuned to song. Experimental acquaintance with Christ- 
ianity could only warrant the chaunting of the sacred ode. 

(Ver. 17.) Καὶ πᾶν ὅ,τι ἂν ποιῆτε, ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῷ, πάντα 
ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ---“Απα whatever ye do in word or 
in deed, do all of it in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or “‘ What- 
ever ye are in the custom of doing,” &e. On the use of ἄν with 
the present, see Winer, ὃ 48, 3, _b. This concluding precept is 
general in its nature. Some take πᾶν, with Flatt and Bihr, 


1 The following is a portion of Basil’s encomium on the Psalms, referred to by us in 
Ephesians :—‘‘ Psalmody is the calm of the soul, the repose of the spirit, the arbiter of 
peace : it silences the wave, and conciliates the whirlwind of our passions, soothing that 
which is impetuous, and tempering that which is unchaste. Psalmody is an engen- 
derer of friendship, a healer of dissension, a reconciler of those who were inimical; for 
who can longer account that man his enemy, with whom to the throne of God he 
hath raised the strain? Wherefore that first of blessings, Christian love, is diffused 
by psalmody, which devises the harmonious concert as a bond of union, and connects 
the people in choral symphonies. Psalmody repels the demons; it lures the ministry 
of angels; a weapon of defence in nightly terrors, a respite from daily toil; to the 
infant a presiding genius, to manhood a resplendent crown, a balm of comfort to the 
aged, a congenial ornament to women. It renders the desert populous, and appeases 
the forum’s tumult ; to the initiated an elementary instruction, to proficients a mighty 
increase, a bulwark unto those who are perfected in knowledge. It is the church’s 
voice. This exhilarates the banquet; this awakens that pious sorrow which has 
reference to God. Psalmody, from a heart of adamant can excite the tear: psalmody 
is the employment of angels, the delight of Heaven, and spiritual frankincense. Oh! 
the sapient design of our Instructor, appointing that at once we should be recreated 
by song, and informed by wisdom. ‘Thus, the precepts of instruction are more 
deeply engraven on our hearts: for the lessons which we receive unwillingly have a 
transient continuance; but those which charm and captivate in the hearing, are 
permanently impressed upon our souls.—From hence may not everything be acquired ? 
Hence mayest thou not be taught whatever is dignified in fortitude, whatever is con- 
summate in justice, whatever is venerable in temperance, whatever is sublime in 
wisdom? Here the nature of penitence is unfolded; patience is here exemplified. 
Is there a blessing to be named, which here resides not? The splendours of theology 
beam effulgent; Jesus is predicted; the resurrection is announced; judgment is pro- 
claimed; the sword of vengeance is unsheathed; crowns of glory glitter; speakless 
mysteries astonish. All these are treasured up in the book of Psalms, as in a com- 
mon treasury of the soul.”—Boyd’s translation, London, 1834. 


254 COLOSSIANS III. 17. 


in an absolute case, others think it better to regard it as 
repeated in the plural form πάντα. Meyer takes the whole 
clause, as far as ἔργῳ, as an absolute nominative. There is an 
earnest rapidity in the composition which may easily excuse 
any rhetorical anomaly. ‘The rule laid down by Kiihner is, 
that a word of special importance is placed at the beginning of 
a sentence in the nominative, to represent it emphatically as the 
fundamental subject of the whole sentence, § 508. No doubt, 
special emphasis is laid on πᾶν, for the apostle’s idea is, that 
while some things are done formally in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, everything should be done really in it. The imperative 
ποιεῖτε is to be supplied. The plural πάντα individualizes 
what has been put collectively under the singular πᾶν. As 
for the whole of what you do in word or in act, let every part or 
separate element of it be done in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
The apostle has just spoken of formal religious service, and 
surely it is to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus. But 
not it alone—all speech and action must be imbued with the 
same spirit. 

But what is meant by the phrase—“‘in the name of?” 
[Ephes. v. 20.] The Greek Fathers explain it widely — 
αὐτὸν καλεῖν βοηθόν. Jerome is farther in error when he 
renders it—ad honorem, for that would represent εἰς with the 
accusative. Vitringa, Observat. Sac. p. 327, says that the 
phrase corresponds to τοῦ. It rather corresponds to oes, and 
strictly means—by his authority, or generally, in recognition 
of it. To speak in His name, or to act in His name, is to 
speak and act not to His honour, but under His sanction and 
with the conviction of His approval. This is the highest 
Christian morality, a vivid and practical recognition of Christ 
in everything said or done. Not simply in religious service, 
but in the business of daily life; not merely in psalms, hymns, 
and spiritual songs, but in the language of friendship and of 
bargain, of the forum and the fireside; not simply in deeds 
which, in their very aspect, are a Christian compliance, such 
as almsgiving, or sacramental communion, but in every act, in 
solitude and in society, in daily toil, in the occupations of 
trade, or negotiations of commerce. ‘This is a high test. 
It is comparatively easy to engage in religious discourse, but 


COLOSSIANS III. 17. 255 


far more difficult to discourse on everything in a, religious 
spirit; comparatively easy to do a professedly Christian act, 
but far more difficult to do every act in a Christian spirit. 
In the one case the mind sets a watch upon itself, and speaks 
and acts under the immediate consciousness of its theme and 
purpose, but in the other, the heart is so influenced by reli- 
gious feeling, that without an effort it acknowledges the name 
of Christ. Men may for the occasion solemnize themselves, 
and word and act may be in direct homage to Christ, but the 
season of such necessity passes away, and the sensations it had 
created lose their hold. Thus, the associations of the Sabbath 
fade during the week, and the emotions‘of the sanctuary lose 
themselves in the market-place. 

Still, the apostle does not inculcate any familiar or fanatical 
use of Christ’s name, it is not to be mixed up with the 
phrases of colloquial life. A man is not to say, in Christ’s 
name I salute thee, or in Christ's name I buy this article 
or sell that one, charter this vessel, or engage in that specu- 
lation. But the apostle means, that such ought to be the 


habitual respect to Christ’s authority, such the constant and / 


\practical influence of His word within us, that even without 


[reference to Him, or express consultation of Hin, all we say) 


fand do should be said and done in His spirit, and with 


| the persuasion that He approves. Christianity should ever 


guard and regulate amidst all secular engagements, and its 
influence should hallow all the relations and engagements of 
life. This is the grand desideratum, the universal reign of the 
Christian spirit. The senator may not discuss Christian 
dogmas in the midst of national interests, but his whole pro- 
cedure must be regulated, not by faction or ambition, but by 
that enlightened patriotism, which, based on justice, is wise 
enough to know that true policy can never contravene 
morality, and is benignant enough to admit that other states 
are interlinked with our progress, and that the world is one 


_ vast brotherhood. The merchant is not to digress into a 


polemical dispute while he is concluding a sale, but love of 
profit is not to supersede rectitude, nor is the maxim, that 


_ there is no friendship in trade, ever to lead him to take undue 


advantage, or accomplish by dexterity what equity would 


256 COLOSSIANS III. 17. 


scarcely permit. The tradesman, as he lifts his tool, is not to 
say, in Christ’s name I strike; but in the spirit of Him who 
was among His disciples, “as one that serveth” is he faithfully 
to finish the labour assigned him, ever feeling himself to be 


,under the “great taskmaster’s eye.” Art, science, literature, 


) 


politics and business, should be all baptized into the spirit of 
Christ. 

Εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ Θεῴ Kat Πατρὶ δ avrov—* Giving 
| thanks to God even the Father by Him.” ‘The sentiment is 
found in Ephes. v. 20, more pointedly and fully expressed, 
and in almost the same connection. As ye give thanks to 
God by Christ, so think all and speak all in Christ’s name, who 
is the medium of thanksgiving. Blessings come through Him, 
and through Him thanks are to be rendered. With this clause, 
Kypke wrongly connects the previous one, thus— “always 
in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God.” 

The apostle now comes to the inculcation of some special 
duties belonging to social and domestic life. Steiger, after 
Chrysostom and Theophylact, has remarked, that only in 
Epistles addressed to Asiatic churches do such formal exhorta- 
tions occur, and he endeavours to account for it by the sup- 
position that the liberty proclaimed by the false teachers had 
developed a dangerous licentiousness, and taught a kind of 
Antinomian exemption from the rules and obligations of mo- 
rality. It is true, as Meyer replies, that no direct polemical 
tendency is discernible in this section: still there must have 
been some reason why, in his letters to Asiatic communities, 
Paul dwells so strongly on this important branch of ethics. 
We may have little more than conjecture, yet we know that 
the apostle penned no paragraph in vain, and that there must 
have been more than accident in the fact that conjugal duty is 
not mentioned in the Epistles to Rome, Philippi, and Thes- 
salonica, but is specially dwelt upon in those to Ephesus and 
Colosse, as also in the apostle Peter’s epistles to churches 
in the same region. The exhortations tendered by Paul to 
Titus as a Cretan pastor, when he touches on the same subject, 
have more of a general character, and those found in the 
epistle to the church in Corinth were called forth by peculiar 
queries. But here, and in the twin epistle, the apostle places 


COLOSSIANS III. 18. 957 


special stress on the conjugal relationship, and its reciprocal 
obligations; as also on the relative duties of parents and 
children, of masters and slaves. Chrysostom gives, as the 
reason, that in such respects these churches were deficient, 
though he does not specify the source of such deficiency. His 
own homilies supply one form of illustration, for they abound 
in severest reproofs against the indecencies, luxuries, and 
immoralities of wedded life, and the picture is evidently 
taken from the state of manners that prevailed in the Byzantine 
capital, in which the discourses seem to have been delivered. 
It would thus appear that in the Asiatic cities there was great 
need to enforce the duties originated by the marriage tie, and 
it may be, that forms of false doctrine had a tendency to 
excite spurious notions of so-called Christian liberty. It is 
easy to conceive how a creed of boastful freedom would 
speedily work its way among slaves. The reader will not 
forget how, at the period of the Reformation, the principles 
of a licentious liberty were not only received, but to a great 
extent acted out by the Anabaptists of Munster. 

(Ver. 18.) Ai γυναῖκες; ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς avépacw— Wives, 
submit yourselves to your husbands.” The ἰδίοις of the 
Received Text has no good authority, and some manuscripts, 
such as D', E', F, G, add ὑμῶν, an evident gloss. The injunc- 
tion has been fully considered under Ephes. v. 25—83, where 
it is enforced by a special argument, and a tender analogy 
derived from the conjugal relation of Christ and His church. 
The submission which is inculecated on the part of the wife is 
wholly different in source and form from that slavery which is 
found in heathen lands, for it is the willing acquiescence which 
springs out of social position and wedded love, and is dictated at 
once by a wife’s affection, and by her instinctive tendency to lean 
on her husband for support. The very satire which is heaped 
upon a wife who governs, or who attempts it, is a proof that 
society expects that fitting harmony of the hearth which the 
gospel recommends. The early and biblical idea of a wife as 
that of a “help meet,” implies that she was to be auxiliary—- 
second, and not principal in the household. Thus unity of 
domestic administration by oneness of headship. 


The apostle subjoins as a reason—me ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ. 
s 


258 COLOSSIANS III. 19. 


Adopting a different punctuation, many, from Chrysostom to 
Winer and Schrader, join ἐν κυρίῳ to the verb ὑποτάσσεσθε, 
as if the meaning were—“ be submissive in the Lord.” The 
order of the words seems to forbid such an exegesis, and ἐν 
κυρίῳ is united by its position to avixey—“ as is fitting in the 
Lord.” In the imperfect form or time of the verb, is implied, 
according to Winer, an appropriate hint that it had not been 
so with them at all times. ὃ 41,3; Bernhardy, 373. The trans- 
lation then is—‘‘as it should be in the Lord.” This obliga- 
tion of submission commenced with their union to the Lord, 
sprang out of it, and had not yet been fully discharged. It is, 
therefore, not a duty which had only newly devolved upon 
them, but its propriety reached back to the point of their con- 
version. ‘heir union with the Lord not only expounded the 
obligation, but also enforced it. Though the general strain of 
these exhortations be the same as in the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, there is usually some specific difference. In the 
other epistle he says, ‘‘ wives be obedient to your own husbands 
as to the Lord,” where ὡς points out the nature, and not 
simply, as Ellicott thinks, the aspect of the obedience enjoined. 
The spirit of the obedience is referred to in Ephesians, and the 
becomingness of that spirit in the clause before us. How 
different from heathen principles, either that of Aristotle— 
mores virt lex vitae; or of Cato, as repeated by Livy, that 
wives are simply in manu virorum. 

(Ver. 19.) Οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας, καὶ μὴ πικραί- 
νεσθε πρὸς αὐτάς---““Ὑ6 husbands, love your wives.” The duty 
is touchingly illustrated in Ephes. v. 25, 26. The implication 
is, that the submission of the wife is gained by the love of the 
husband. Though the husband is to govern, he must govern in 
kindness. ‘This duty is so plain that it needs no enforcement. 
The apostle then specifies one form in which the want of this 
love must have often shown itself—‘ and be not bitter against 
them.” ‘The tropical use of the verb is as obvious as is that of 
the noun in Ephes. iv. 31. The verb, which is sometimes 
followed by ἐπί in the Septuagint, is here followed by πρός." 
There is no doubt that the inconsistency here condemned was 


' The verb oceurs in the same sense in Philo, and is to some extent explained by 
Plutarch. See Kypke, in oc. 


COLOSSIANS III. 19. 259 


a common occurrence in heathen life, where a wife was but a 
legal concubine, and matrimony was not hallowed and enno- 
bled by the Spirit of Him who wrought His first miracle to 
supply the means of enjoyment at a marriage feast. The 
apostle forbids that sour and surly objurgation which want of 
love will necessarily create; all that hard treatment in look, 
and word, that unkind and churlish temper which defective 
attachment so often leads to. Wives are to submit, not 
indeed to guard against a frown or a chiding, but to insure a 
deeper love. So that if this love is absent, such obedience 
will not be secured by perpetual irritation and fault-finding, 
followed by the free use of opprobrious and degrading epithets. 

In Ephesians, the apostle proposes as the example Christ’s 
love to the church in its fervour, self-sacrifice, and holy purpose, 
and also enjoins the husband to love his wife as himself, as being 
in truth a portion of himself (ὡς containing in it a species of 
argumentative comparison), but here the injunction is curt 
and unillustrated, followed only by the prohibition of a sin 
which a husband’s indifference will most certainly induce. It 
would almost seem, however, as if the phrase, “as is fitting in 
the Lord,” enforced both the duty recorded before it, and that 
which stands after it. ‘Tertullian, in his address to his wife, 
written before he became a Montanist, describes the hap- 
piness of a marriage in the Lord in the following glowing 
terms :—“‘ How can we find words to express the happiness 
of that marriage which the church effects, and the oblation 
confirms, and the blessing seals, and angels report, and the 
Father ratifies. What a union of two believers, with one 
hope, one discipline, one service, one spirit, and one flesh ! 
Together they pray, together they prostrate themselves, and 
together keep their fasts, teaching and exhorting one another, 
and sustaining one another. They are together at the church 
and at the Lord’s supper; they are together in straits, in 
persecutions, and refreshments. Neither conceals anything 
from the other; neither avoids the other; neither is a burden 
to the other; freely the sick are visited, and the needy re- 
lieved; alms without torture; sacrifices without scruple; daily 
diligence without hindrance; no using of the sign by stealth ; 
no hurried salutation; no silent benediction; psalms and hymns 


200 COLOSSIANS III. 20. 


resound between the two, and they vie with each other which 
shall sing best to their God. Christ rejoices on hearing and 
beholding such things; to such persons He sends His peace. 
Where the two are, he is Himself; and where He is, there the 
Evil One is not.” 

From conjugal the apostle naturally passes to parental duty. 

(Ver. 20.) Τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσι κατὰ πάντα--- 
“ Children, obey your parents in all things.” The wife is 
generally to be submissive, but children are to be obedient, to 
listen and execute parental commands, and to exemplify a 
special form of submission for which the filial relation affords 
so many opportunities. [Ephes. vi. 1—3.] The love of the 
child’s heart naturally leads it to obedience. Only an unna- 
tural child can be a domestic rebel. Where the parents are 
Christians, and govern their children in a Christian spirit, 
obedience should be without exception, or—xara πάντα. The 
apostle, speaking in reference to Christian parents, for his 
epistle could reach none but children of that class, takes no 
heed of any exception. The principle involved in his admoni- 
tion is, that children are not the judges of what they should 
or should not obey in parental precepts. 

The best reading of the following clause is τοῦτο yap ἐστιν 
εὐάρεστον ἐν kupiy— For this is well pleasing in the Lord,” 
not as the older form had it, “well-pleasing to the Lord.” 
The construction is similar to that of the 19th verse, the 
specific difference of thought being, that in the former case, 
submission is an appropriate thing in the Lord; while in this 
case filial obedience is marked with special approbation, as 
being well-pleasing im the Lord. Resting on Christian prin- 


! “ Quale jugum fidelium duorum unius spei, unius disciplinze, ejusdem servitutis ! 
Ambo fratres, ambo conseryi, nulla spiritus carnisve discretio. Atque vero duo in 
carne una; ubi caro una, unus et spiritus. Simul orant, simul volutantur, et simul 
jejunia transigunt, alterutro docentes, alterutro hortantes, alterutro sustinentes. In 
ecclesia Dei pariter utrique, pariter in conyivio Dei, pariter in angustiis, in persecu- 
tionibus, in refrigeriis ; neuter alterum celat, neuter alterum vitat, neuter alteri 
gravis est; libere ger visitatur, indigens sustentatur; eleemosine sine tormento, 
sacrificia sine scrupulo, quotidiana diligentia sine impedimento; non furtiva signatio, 
non trepida gratulatio, non muta benedictio; sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et 
mutuo provocant, quis melius Deo suo cantet. Talia Christus videns et audiens 
gaudet, his pacem suam mittit; ubi duo, ibi et ipse; ubi et ipse, ibi et malus non 
est.—Tertull. ad Uxorem, ii. 9. 


COLOSSIANS IIL 21. 261 


ciple and motive, it meets Divine approbation. In Ephes. vi. 
1, the apostle calls it—éicaov, a thing right in itself, and then 
he quotes the fifth commandment to show that such a duty is 
also inculeated in Scripture, but here he regards it simply in a 
religious aspect, and awards to it Christ’s approval. 

(Ver. 21.) Οἱ πατέρες μὴ ἐρεθίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν---“Υο 
fathers, do not provoke your children.” [Ephes. vi. 4.] 
Authorities of no mean note give us παροργίζετε, a reading 
adopted by Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, but which 
might slip into the text from Ephes. vi. 4, though, certainly, 
it is found in A, C, D', E*, F, G. The verb, as in 1 Mace. xv. 
40; Deut. xxi. 20, is to irritate, to fret, to rouse to anger, and 
not, as in 2 Cor. ix. 2, to stir up to emulation. Fathers are 
spoken to since training 15 their duty, and because this 
peculiar sin which the apostle condemns is one to which they, 
and not mothers, are peculiarly hable. The paternal govern- 
ment must be one of kindness, without caprice; and of equity, 
without favouritism. ‘The term includes greatly more than 
what Burton understands by it—do not carry their punish- 
ment too far.” The child, when chastised, should feel that 
the punishment is not the result of fretful anger; and when it 
obeys, its obedience should not be prompted, or rather, forced, 
by menaced infliction. If children, let them do what they 
can, never please their father, if they are teazed and irritated 
by perpetual censure, if they are kept apart by uniform stern- 
ness, if other children around them are continually held up as 
immeasurably their superiors, if their best efforts can only 
moderate the parental frown, but never are greeted with the 
parental smile, then their spirit is broken, and they are 
discouraged. 

Against this sad result the apostle warns— 

“Tva μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν---““ Lest they be disheartened.” The com- 
position of the verb shows its strong signification. Children 
teazed and irritated lose heart, renounce every endeavour to 
please, or render at best but a soulless obedience. The verb 
occurs only here in the New Testament, but is found in the 
Septuagint; 1 Kings i. 7, &c. and in several of the classical au- 
thors. What the apostle euards against has been often witnessed, 
with its deplorable consequences. In the Epistle to the Ephes- 


202 COLOSSIANS III. 21. 


ians, he speaks more fully, and enjoins the positive mode of 
tuition—‘“ but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord.” The young spirit is to be carefully and tenderly 
developed, and not crushed by harsh and ungenerous treatment. 
Too much is neither to be demanded nor expected. ‘The twig 
is to be bent with caution, not broken in the efforts of a rude 
and hasty zeal. Approbation is as necessary to the child as 
counsel, and promise as indispensable as warning and reproof. 
Gisborne on this place well says—‘“ To train up children as ser- 
vants of God, as soldiers of Jesus Christ, for a future existence 
in preference to the present life; to instruct and habituate 
them, in conformity with their baptismal vow, to renounce the 
world, the flesh, and the devil, and to live not unto themselves 
but to that Redeemer who died for them; this is universally 
the grand duty of a parent. ‘This well-known duty the 
apostle, though he does not name it, presupposes as acknow- 
ledged and felt by the Colossians. In the discharge of this 
duty, and in every step of their proceedings, he directs them 
to beware, as parents, of provoking their children to anger; 
that is to say, as the original term evidently implies, of exer- 
cising their own authority with irritating unkindness, with 
needless and vexatious severity; of harassing their children 
by capricious commands and restrictions; of showmg ground- 
less dissatisfaction, and scattering unmerited reproof. To act 
thus, the apostle declares, would be so far from advancing the 
religious improvement of children, that it would discourage 
them. It would not only deaden their affections towards their 
parents, but would dispirit their exertions, and check their 
desires after holiness.” ' 

Following the same order of thought as in re Epistle to the 
Ephesians, the apostle next turns him to the other members of 
the household, the slaves. It is probable that the false philo- 
sophy inculcated, with regard to them, certain notions of 
freedom which were not merely unattainable, but the belief of 
which might only aggravate the essential hardness of their lot. 
Steiger has referred to the fact that the Pharisees gave a 
special prominence to political freedom, (Jchn viii. 33), and 
he says, drawing his authority from Philo, that the Essenes 

' Familiar Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, London, 1816. 


COLOSSIANS ILL. 22. 263 


held a doctrine, which would, if carried out to practice, lead 
to a philanthropic revolution. At all events, they condemned 
slave-masters as not only unjust, but impious, and destroyers 
of a law of nature—O@zopov φύσεως ἀναιρούντων. ‘The false 
teachers, if they held similar views, might inculcate this 
abstract doctrine, which, whatever its inherent truth, could 
not in those days lead to anything but discord and _ blood- 
shed. The apostle, on the other hand, applied himself to 
things as they were, and while he attempted to moderate an 
evil which he could not subvert, he laid down those principles, 
by the spread of which social bondage first was shorn of its 
grievances, and then lost its very existence. We have already 
stated, under Ephes. vi. 5—8, the relation in which the 
gospel stood to the slaves, how it raised them to spiritual 
brotherhood, and gave them a conscious freedom which chains 
and oppression could not subvert. It so trained them, and so 
tutored their Christian masters, that slavery in a Christian 
household must have existed only in name, and the name 
itself was ready to disappear as soon as society was leavened 
with the spirit of Christianity. 

The injunctions here delivered are much the same as those 
in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The reader is invited to turn 
to the prefatory remarks to our comment on Ephes. vi. ὅ. 
The apostle does not speak vaguely, but hits upon those vices 
which slavery is so apt to engender—indolence, eye-service, 
and reluctance in labour. 

(Ver. 22.) Οἱ δοῦλοι ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα 
κυρίοις. [Ephes vi. ὅ.] The master of the slave is only so— 
κατὰ σάρκα, the relationship is but corporeal and external, 
the contrast being—the real master is the Lord Christ. No 
distinction can be established between κύριος and δεσπότης in 
the New Testament, either in their Divine or human applica- 
tion. The principle of the obedience is κατὰ πάντα, as in 
verse 20. Refractoriness on the part of the slave would at 
once have embittered his life, and brought discredit on the 
new religion which he professed, but active and cheerful dis- 
charge of all duty would both benefit himself, promote his 
comfort, and recommend Christianity. 

Μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι---“ Not with eye- 


2ρ4 COLOSSIANS IIL. 23. 


service, as men-pleasers.” [Ephes. vi. 6.] The plural form 
of the first noun is preferred by some, as being the more diffi- 
cult reading, but the singular has A, B, D, E, F, G, in its 
favour. Yet Tischendorf has rejected it in spite of all this testi- 
mony. The Codices D, E, F, G, have ancther, and perhaps 
more correct spellng—é@0admodovAia. In Ephes. vi. 6, the 
apostle uses κατά, but here ἐν. In the former place they are 
enjoined to obey in singleness of heart, as unto Christ—“ not 
according to eye-service ”—that is, not in the style of eye- 
service; here they are asked not to serve in eye-service, 
that is, in the spirit of it. Slaves have usually but the one 
motive, and that is, to avoid punishment, and therefore they 
only labour to please the master when his eye is on them. 
They are disposed to trifle when he is absent, in the hope that 
their indolence may not be detected. But Christian slaves 
were to work on principle, were to do their duty at all times, 
and from a higher motive, conscious that another eye was 
upon them, and that their service was really rendered to 
another master. Such a conviction would prevent them being 
ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι. See under Ephes. vi. 6, where we have 
noticed the necessary connection of this vice with slavery. 

᾽᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας φοβούμενοι τὸν Kigrov— But 
in singleness of heart fearing the Lord”—(Christ). Κύριον is 
preferred to Θέον on undoubted authority. [Ephes. vi. 5.] 
Singleness of heart (1 Chron. xxix. 17,) is that sincerity which 
the heathen slave could scarcely possess, for he would often 
seem to work, and yet contrive to enjoy his ease under the 
semblance of activity. Duplicity is the vice which the slave 
uses as his shield. He professes anxiety when he feels none, 
and he exhibits a show of industry without the reality. For 
this singleness of heart could only be secured by such a 
motive as the gospel presents—“ fearing the Lord”—standing 
in awe of His authority over them. ‘They would not be men- 
pleasers if they bowed to Christ’s authority, for then their aim 
would be to please Him, nor would there be eye-service, if 
they wrought in singleness of heart, for such a feeling would 
lead them to conclude the task in hand, irrespectively of every 
minor and personal consideration. 

(Ver. 23.) In this verse, the common reading is καὶ πᾶν 6, 


COLOSSIANS III. 24. 265 


τι gay ποιῆτε, but the better reading is ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς 
ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις ---“ Whatever ye are 
in the way of doing, work it heartily as to the Lord, and not to 
men.” ‘They were, in any task that might be assigned them, 
to labour at it, to work it out, and that without grumbling or 
reluctance, not only doing it honestly but cheerfully, as Chry- 
sostom says—pr μετὰ δουλικῆς ἀνάγκης. [Ephes. vi. 6.] The 
heathen slave might do everything with a grudge, for he had 
no interest in his labour, but the believing slave was to act 
with cordiality, plying his toil with alacrity, for he was serving 
in all this industry no human master, but the Lord, who had 
bought him with His precious blood. Let this be the feeling, 
and there would be no temptation to fall into eye-service, men- 
pleasing, and duplicity of heart or conduct. The apostle says 
without reservation—“ as to the Lord, and not to men.” There 
is no necessity to take οὐκ as meaning οὐ μόνον. The imme- 
diate object of the service must be man, but the ultimate 
object is the Lord; the negative, though absolute in form, 
being relative in sense. Winer, ὃ 59, 7. The service, what- 
ever its nature, or its relation to man, was ever to be felt and 
viewed as an act of obedience done to Christ. See under verse 
17. In doing it to others, they did it to Him; and to Hin, 
with such claims upon their love and fealty, they could not 
but give suit and service heartily. As usual, in the parallel 
place in Ephesians, the thought is given more fully, and the 
relationship of the slave’s labour to Christ is twice noted. 
Besides, not only was the servant to work as here—ék« ψυχῆς--- 
“from the heart,” pointing out his relation to his work, but 
he is enjoined also to labour—per’ evvotac—that is, “ with 
good will” to his master. The apostle adds yet further— 
(Ver. 24.) Εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπό- 
δοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας---“ Knowing that from the Lord ye 
shall receive the reward of the inheritance.” With this per- 
suasion within them, they should be able to follow out the 
inspired admonition, and such knowledge would form a motive 
of sufficient energy and life. Serving the Lord in serving 
man, they would receive their reward from Him. Winer, § 
51, 5, represents ἀπό as denoting that the recompense comes 
immediately from Christ, its possessor. Their masters are in 


200 COLOSSIANS III. 25. 


no sense to be the dispensers of that reward. Christ Himself 
shall bestow it. The compound noun, ἀνταπόδοσις, is found 
only here in the New Testament.' That remuneration is the 
“inheritance.” [Ephes. i. 11—14.] Also Col. i. 12. The geni- 
tive is that of apposition, such as is found in Ephes. iv. 9; 2 
Cor. v. 5. See our Commentary on Ephesians, p. 278. The 
inheritance is heavenly glory, 1 Pet. 1. 4, and that is their 
prospective blessing. They had no inheritance on earth, 
nothing which they could call their own; they could not even 
realize property in themselves—but an inheritance rich and 
glorious awaited them. In the hope of it—and the enjoyment 
of it could not be very distant—they were to work, and 
suffer, and wait, and in the possession of it they,would find 
immediate and ample compensation. [Ephes. vi. 8.] ;There 
is no room here for the Popish doctrine of merit. Nota hoe, 
says a-Lapide, pro meritis bonorum operum, contra Novantes ; 
but Biihr adduces the terse reply of Calovius—iliis haereditas 
non confertur ex obedientiae merito, sed jure filiationis. 

The yap of the next clause, as found in the Textus Receptus, 
cannot be received, as-it is only an interpolated, gloss—ra 
κυρίῳ Χρίστῷ SovAsvere—which the Vulgate renders, Domino 
Christo servite, “serve ye the Lord Christ.” Perhaps, , as 
Meyer says, the imperative is preferable, yap being spurious. 
It is thus a summation of the whole—“ the master, Christ, serve 
ye.” The use of the indicative is foreign to the passage, which 
is injunctive. Since the Lord gives such a reward so rich and 
blessed, serve ye Him. Look above and beyond human 
service, and with such a bright prospect in view, serve the 
Lord Christ. Your masters on earth have no absolute right 
over you: the shekels they may have paid for you can only 
give them power over your bodies, your time and your 
labour, but the Lord has bought you with His blood, and has 
therefore an indefeasible claim to your homage and service. 

(Ver. 25.) Ὁ yap ἀδικῶν κομίσεται 6 ἠδίκησεν. The δέ of 
the Stephanic 15 rightly replaced by γάρ, on the evidence of 
A, B, C, D', F, G, and many of the Versions. The construc- 
tion of the clause is idiomatic—‘“ the wrong doer shall receive 


But sometimes in the classics, Elsner, in loc. 


COLOSSIANS III. 32. 267 


what he has wronged.” Winer, ὃ 66, 11. b, says it can scarcely 
be called a brachylogy, for it is somewhat, as is said in Ger- 
man,—er wird das Unrecht erndtet—that is, he does not receive 
the wrong itself, but the fruit of it, or the wrong in the form 
of punishment. He shall be paid, as we say, in his own coin. 
The wrong doer shall bear the penalty of the wrong. 

The question is, to whom does the apostle refer. 1. Some 
suppose him to mean the slave, as if to warn him, that if he failed 
in his duty he must expect to be punished. ‘This is the notion 
of Theophylact, Bengel, Storr, Flatt, Heinrichs, and De Wette. 
This exegesis may have the support of the mere words, but it 
does not tally with the concluding clause—‘ there is no respect 
of persons with Him.” Is the fact that the Judge has no respect 
of persons an argument that an unjust slave shall not escape 
punishment? The phrase, ‘respect of persons,” usually implies 
that an offender, simply for his rank and station, escapes the 
penalty—a mode of partiality not at all applicable to slaves. 
The argument of Bengel is only ingenious—tenues saepe 
putant, sibt propter tenuitatem wpsorum esse parcendum. 

2. Others regard the verse as indicating a great general prin- 
ciple, applicable alike to the master and his slave. Such is the 
view of Jerome and Pelagius, Biihr, Huther, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and Trollope. Jerome says—quicumque ijuriam 
intucertt, sive dominus sive servus, uterque......- But the same 
objection applies to this view as to the former. So that we 
incline to the third opinion, which is, that the words refer to 
the master, the view of Theodoret, Anselm, Aquinas, Erasmus, 
Beza, Calvin, Estius, and Meyer, while De Wette allows its 
possibility. The connection of the thought seems to be—“ you 
are Christ’s servants, and you shall receive the reward from 
Him. Injustice you may in the meantime receive from your 
earthly masters, but they shall be judged for it, not at a human 
tribunal, where their rank may protect them, but before Him 
who in His decisions has no respect of persons. ‘Therefore, 
ye masters, give your slaves what is just and equal.” There is, 
besides, a strong tendency in any one who owns slaves, and 
exercises irresponsible power over them, to treat them with 
capricious and heedless tyranny. The statement of the apostle, 
then, contains a general truth, with a special application to the 


268 COLOSSIANS IV. 1. 


proprietors of slaves, and is therefore the basis of the following 
admonition. Meyer rests another argument on the current 
meaning of the participle ἀδικῶν in the New Testament, which, 
he says, with the exception of Rev. xx. 11, denotes Unrecht 
zufugen, not Unrecht thun. We should be inclined to except 
also Philem. 18, and perhaps 1 Cor. vi. 8. In fact, our 
translators have given the word at least eight different render- 
ings. Ten times have they rendered it “hurt,” eight times 
have they rendered by “do wrong,” as in the case before us, 
twice simply by “wrong,” twice by “suffer wrong,” once by 
“injure,” once by “take wrong,” once by “offender,” and once 
by “unjust.” The predominant idea is not, to act unjustly, 
but to injure, and refers therefore more probably not to the 
slave forgetting his duty, but to his master, tempted by his 
station and power, to do an act of injury toward his servile 
and helpless dependents. 

Καὶ οὐκ ἔστι tpoowroAnpia— And there is no respect of 
persons.” [Ephes. vi. 9.] Rom. i. 11; Acts x. 34; Jas. i1. 
ips 

(Cuap. IV. Ver. 1.) The division of chapters is here very 
unfortunate. The apostle while he stooped to counsel the 
slave, was not afraid to speak to his master. 

“Ou κύριοι, τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότηατ τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε 
—‘ Ye masters, afford for your part to your servants what is 
just and equal,” or rather “reciprocal.” [Ephes. vi. 9.] The 
verb in the middle voice, has in it the idea, ‘as far as you are 
concerned.” Acts xix. 24. The principal term, and the one 
about which there is any dispute, is ἰσότητα. What does the 
apostle mean precisely by it? Not a few understand by it 
equity in general. Such is the view of Robinson, Wahl, 
Bretschneider, and Wilke, in their respective lexicons, and 
also of Steiger, Huther, and De Wette, in their respective 
commentaries. Others, again, like Erasmus, a-Lapide, and 
Boéhmer, look on the words as denoting impartiality—do not 
in your treatment of your slaves prefer one to another, give 
them the like usage. In the only other passage of the New 
Testament where the word occurs, it denotes not equity, but 
equality. 2 Cor. vii. 14: “But by an equality, that now 
at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, 


COLOSSIANS IV. 1. 269 


that their abundance also may be a supply for your want; 
that there may be equality.” In this verse equality is the 
idea—your abundance and their want, their abundance and 
your want being in reciprocal adjustment. In the passage 
before us, we incline to follow the older expositors, Calvin, 
Zanchius, Crocius, as also Meyer, who give it such a sense. 
The meaning is not very different from that of the correspond- 
ing passage in Ephes. vi. 9—“ ye masters, do the same things 
unto them,” which we have explained as meaning what Calvin 
has called the jus analogum. While we agree with the 
general view of Meyer, we think him wrong in his special 
application of it. He regards the ἰσότητα as involving that 
spiritual parity which Christian brotherhood creates. Slaves 
are your equals, and they should be treated with such equality. 
This exegesis is based on the supposition that Christian slaves 
only are meant, a supposition which, we think, cannot be 
admitted. The slaves are told how to behave toward their 
masters, whether these masters are Christians or not; and the 
master is admonished how to conduct himself toward his slaves, 
whether these slaves be Christians or not. The apostle speaks 
to Christian slaves and Christian masters; but such slaves 
might have heathen masters, and such masters might have 
unconverted slaves. There is no warrant, then, for saying, 
that the apostle only teaches the duty of masters towards 
Christian servants. Whatever the religious creeds of their 
serfs, they were to give them what is just and equal. The 
equality lay in reciprocal duty; if the slave is bound to serve 
the master, the master is bound equally to certain duties to 
the slave. The elements of service have a claim on equal 
elements of mastership. Equality demands this, that he shall 
give the slave all to which he is entitled, not with a view 
to please men, but to please God—“ doing it heartily as unto 
the Lord.” Such property had its duties as well as its rights, 
and the equality lay between the exercise of such duties and 
the enforcement of such rights. The phrase τὸ δίκαιον means 
what is right, irrespective of all considerations, that is, what 
the position of the slave as a man and a servant plainly 
involves. Right and duty should be of equal measurement. 
The apostle did not bid the masters demit their mastership, 


270 COLOSSIANS IV. 1. 


for he does not mean by ἰσότης, equality of rank with them- 
selves, for such an elevation would imply greatly more than 
the bestowal of personal freedom. Masters are still called so, 
as they still stood in that relationship, but Christianity was to 
reculate all their transactions with those placed under them 
and owned by them. And with regard to their Christian 
slaves—the equality which Meyer contends for was certainly 
to guide them—the equality so well explained in the Epistle 
to Philemon. 

One powerful reason the apostle adds— 

Εἰδότες, ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε Κύριον ἐν ovpavotc—“ Knowing 
that ye too have a master in heaven.” ‘The participle has its 
common causal sense. It is not material to our purpose 
whether the reading be οὐρανῷ or οὐρανοῖς. The sense is— 
ye are under law yourselves to the highest of masters—you 
are in the position of servants to the heavenly Lord. As ye 
would that your Master should treat you, so do you as masters 
treat them. Let the great Master’s treatment of you be the 
model of your treatment of them. If the masters realized 
this fact, that in this higher service their slaves, if Christ- 
ians, and themselves were colleagues, ransomed by the 
same price, the same service appointed to them, and the 
same prospect set before them, a tribunal before which they 
should stand on the same level, and an inheritance in which 
they should equally share, irrespective of difference in social 
rank upon earth, then would they be kept from all temptations 
to harshness and injury towards their dependents. Who does 
not recollect the touching language of Job? “If I did 
despise the cause of my man-servant, or of my maid-servant, 
when they contended with me; what then shall I do when 
God riseth up? and when He visiteth, what shall I answer 
Him? Did not He that made me in the womb make him? 
and did not one fashion us in the womb?” xxxi. 13—15. 

That the apostle im such admonitions pursued the wisest 
course, the Servile wars of Rome are abundant evidence. The 
principles inculcated by him lightened the burden, and their 
practical development in course of time removed it. So 
numerous were the slaves, that in very many cases they far 
outnumbered the freemen—as in Attica, where the propor- 


COLOSSIANS IV. 1. 271 


tion was at least four to one. Probably very many of them 
were to be found in all the early churches. 

The apostle lays down three positions fatal to slavery. 
First, he denies a common theory of the times, which 
seems to have regarded slaves as an inferior caste, either 
born so, as Aristotle affirms, or brought into servitude, as 
Homer sings, from mental imbecility.. For he pleads for 
reciprocity, and thereby admits no distinction but the one of 
accidental rank. And, secondly, he declares that certain duties 
to slaves spring from natural right, an idea, the admission of 
which would not only at once have put an end to the in- 
credible cruelties of Spartan and Roman slave owners, but 
which did also, by and by, as it leavened society, prompt 
Christian men to give liberty to their servants, made like 
themselves in God’s image, and as entitled as themselves to a 
free personality. Thirdly, he avows that in the Christian 
church there is neither “bond nor free,” and thus provides 
and opens a spiritual asylum, within which equality of the 
highest kind was enjoyed, and master and slave were not in 
such a relationship recognized. For master and slave were 
alike the free servants of a common Lord in heaven. In the 
meantime, as Chrysostom says, Christianity gave freedom in 
slavery, and this was its special distinction? The same 
Father tells what spiritual benefit Christian servants had often 
imparted to their masters’ households, and Neander states 
that a Christian female slave was the means of bringing the 
province of ancient Georgia to the knowledge of Christ.’ 


1 Euripides, too, says of the slave race—obx ὁρᾷς ὅσον κακόν. 
2 Τοιοῦτον ὃ χρισφίανισμός. In loc. 1 Cor. xix. 
8 Memorials, p. 306. Bohn, London, 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE apostle now passes to more general admonitions. But 
he places prayer in front, and he delights to contemplate it as 
the “ladder” which connects earth with heaven, by which the 
soul rises to highest communion, and spiritual blessings, like 
descending angels, come down to our world. 

(Ver. 2.) Τῇ προσευχῇ mpookaprepeire — “ Continue in 
prayer.” The apostle knew the benefit of prayer from his 
own experience, and he is therefore anxious that they should 
pray with persevering energy, and give himself a prominent 
place in their intercessions. [Ephes. vi. 18.] Rom. xu. 12; 
1 Thess. v.17. They prayed, and the apostle was well aware of 
it, but he exhorts them to “continue in prayer.” They were 
never to suppose that prayer was needless, either because 
their desires had been gratified, or God had bestowed upon them 
all His gifts. But as they were still needing, and God was 
still promising, they were still to persist in asking. This per- 
severance was a prime element of successful prayer, as it 
proved their sincerity, and evinced the power of their faith. 
They were to pray and wait, not to be discouraged, but still 
to hold on—wrestling in the spirit of him who said, “I will 
not let thee go except thou bless me.” 

Γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστία. The phrase ἐν εὐχαρ- 
ἱστίᾳ is not connected with the preceding τῇ προσευχῇ προσ- 
καρτερεῖτε, but with the words last quoted—‘“ watching in it with 
thanksgiving.” The present form belongs only to the later 
Greek. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, pp. 118, 119—éyphyopa perfect 
of ἐγείρω being employed. Eustathius, ad Odyss. 1880; Sturz, 
p- 157; Buttmann, ὃ 343. It would be an unworthy view to 
refer this language to the practice of ancient Christianity, which 
was compelled by persecution to spend so many hours of the 
night in devotional exercises. Such tame formality is not 
involved, but it still clings to humanity, and is found not only 


COLOSSIANS IV. 3. 20a 


“in the confusion of Paternoster and Ave Marias among the 
Catholics,” but also “in the no less pious babbling of many a 
pietist keeper of the hours.”' The apostle enjoins, not physical, 
but spiritual wakefulness, as in Ephes. vi. 18, where he em- 
ploys ἀγρυπνοῦντες. They were to be ever on their guard 
against remissness. If a man refuses to sleep that his attention 
may not be interrupted, his watching argues the value he places 
on the end desired. To prayer, Christians are to give themselves 
with sleepless anxiety, and are ever to watch against all slack- 
ness or supineness in it, and against all formality and unbelief. 
1 Thess. v. 6; 1 Pet. v. 8. They were not to become torpid 
or careless, but were to beware of spiritual sleepiness in their 
devotions. And along with prayer, they were to be wakeful 
“im thanksgiving.” ii. 7. Olshausen lays too great stress 
upon the phrase when he says that by ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ the more 
general προσευχή 15 more accurately defined. He adds, “that 
the prayer of a Christian, in the consciousness of his expe- 
rienced grace can never be anything else than a thanksgiving.” 
But the apostle in no sense nor form identifies prayer with 
thanksgiving, he only classes thanksgiving along with prayer. 
See under i. 7. Still there are so many grounds for thanks- 
giving that it cannot be omitted in any approach to the throne 
of grace. While we ask for so much, there is also much for 
which we ought to give thanks. We must give Him credit 
for what He has done already, while we ask Him to do more. 
There are many reasons of thanksgiving, and not the least of 
them is the privilege of prayer itself. Prayer and thanks- 
giving co-exist only on earth. They shall be separated in the 
other world, for in the region of woe there is only wailing, 
and in that of glory there is only melody. 

(Ver. 3.) The apostle wished himself to be specially in- 
cluded in their supplications. 

Προσευχόμενοιμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ---““ Praying at the same time 
also for us.” We cannot suppose, with some critics, that Paul 
means only himself, when he uses ἡμῶν. True, indeed, he 
immediately uses the singular, still he seems first to include 
others with himself. But we cannot say that Timothy is the 


Stier, Reden Jesu, Matt. vi. 7. 
a 


274. COLOSSIANS IV. 3. 


only person meant besides himself. These others may have 
been persons circumstanced like the apostle, and probably 
comprised at least those whose names are mentioned in the 
concluding salutations. The Greek expositors dwell on the 
apostle’s humility in asking the prayers of the Colossian 
church, Theophylact adding that the circumstance also shows 
- τὴν δυνάμιν τῆς φιλαδέλφου εὐχῆς. Yes, and it also shows 
that the apostle was no Stoic, that he felt the need of those 
prayers, and set a high value on them. For the circumstances 
in which he was placed had a depressing tendency, and he 
seems, not indeed to have lost confidence in himself, but to 
have had some apprehension that from age and infirmity he 
might yield, or appear to yield before them. But he knew 
the power of prayer. ‘Human entreaty has shut up heaven, 
and has again opened it. At the voice of a man the sun 
stood still, Prayer has sweetened the bitter fountain, divided 
the sea, and stilled its waves. It has disbanded armies, and 
prevented conflict; it has shortened battle, and given victory 
to right. It has conferred temporal abundance, as in the case 
of Jabez; and given effect to medical appliances, as in the 
case of Hezekiah. It has quenched the mouths of lions, and 
opened the gates of the prison-house. As Jesus prayed by 
the river, the dove alighted on Him; and as He prayed on 
the hill, He was transfigured. The glory of God was mani- 
fested to Moses when he asked it, and the grace of Christ to 
Paul when he besought it. Not a moment elapsed between 
the petition of the crucified thief, and its glorious answer. 
Ere Daniel concluded his devotion, the celestial messenger 
stood at his side. The praying church brought down upon 
itself the Pentecostal effusion.” The prayer which he wished 
to be offered for them was this— 

Ἵνα 6 Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου---“ That God would 
open to us ἃ door of discourse ”—that is, an opportunity of 
preaching. Mr. Ellicott, on Ephes. i. 17, assigns to ἵνα three 
meanings in the New Testament—a telic, hypotelic, and 
ecbatic meaning, and he adds, that “our criticism, admitting 
the third and denying the second after verbs of entreaty is 


1 Eadie, The Divine Love, &c. p. 184, 1855. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 3. 205 


somewhat illogical.” He prefers the second, or covert telic 
sense. But surely our admission of an ecbatic sense of ἵνα 
in the New Testament, does not compel us to admit in such a 
construction as the one before us, a hypotelic sense. Nor do 
we feel the harshness which Winer alleges to be in the telic 
sense of ἵνα after verbs of entreating. In short, the hypotelic 
sense is more ingenious than sound. The result, as future, 
and as the effect of conscious instrumentality, is subjectively 
regarded under the aspect of design. ‘The subject of a prayer is 
rarely so blended with its design as occasionally to obscure it 
when it is prefaced by ἵνα, for that subject still assumes to 
the writer’s mind the idea of purpose, and therefore there is 
no need to drop or modify the proper telic sense of the con- 
junction. Here the opening of a door of utterance was to be 
the subject of prayer, and they were to pray in order that it 
might be granted. While the theme was on their tongue, the 
prompting of a final purpose was felt in their hearts. The 
suppliants naturally looked at the end, while they repeated 
the theme, and thus the apostle proposes this theme to them 
under the aspect of an end which they were to keep steadily 
before them at a throne of grace. 

We cannot agree with those who think that by θύραν 
τοῦ λόγου is meant simply “the mouth,” as the medium of 
speech. Yet, a great number hold this view, such as Thomas 
Aquinas and Anselm, Calvin and Beza, Cajetan and Estius, 
a-Lapide, Zanchius, and Bengel. In the New Testament 
we find θύρα used in the secondary sense of occasion, or op- 
portunity. Acts xiv. 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii, 12; Rev. 
iii. 8. The figure is so natural and apparent, that it occurs 
frequently among classical writers, both Greek and Latin. 
While the exegesis referred to does not come up to the mean- 
ing of the words, that of Chrysostom and his followers gocs 
beyond it, when they thus explain θύραν as—eicodor καὶ wap- 
ῥησίαν, an idea borrowed from Ephes. vi. 19. The apostle 
longed for liberty, not for itself, but for the opportunity which 
it gave him of preaching the gospel. He might, indeed, in 
his captivity, find some opportunity of preaching, but he longed 
for uninterrupted license. Nay, his own personal liberty was 
nothing to him but in so far as it gave him an unhampered 


276 | COLOSSIANS IV. 3. 


sphere of evangelical labour. The opening of the door of 
his prison would be the opening of a door of discourse to 
them, and specially to him, for his design was— 

Δαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ---“ To speak the mystery 
of Christ.” The infinitive is that of result. Winer, ὃ 45. On 
the meaning of μυστήριον, see under Ephes. i. 9; 11. 4, and 
especially vi. 19. Christ is the subject of that mystery, it has 
Him for its theme. See also under i. 26. It was the apostle’s 
special function to act as a hierophant, or to makeit known. It 
was by the proclamation of it that its blessings were to be 
enjoyed, arid the apostle longed to speak it. His attachment 
to the mystery was in no way weakened by the persecution 
which for his disclosure of it had come upon hin. 

Ac ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι----“ For which yea I am bound.” Winer, 
§ 57, 2. The form ὅ is preferred to ὅν, as being the reading of 
A, C, D, E, J, Καὶ, &. See under i, 24. These chains lay 
upon him because he unvailed the mystery in its full extent. 
He had been imprisoned for preaching it, but still, if liberated, 
would he preach it again. Thus, at length, the apostle con- 
verges those prayers upon himself. In praying for the others, 
as he requested them, particular reference was to be made 
to himself, and his inability, through his bonds, to proclaim 
the mystery of Christ. These bonds had not deadened his 
love to it, and he longed to proclaim it in this aspect of it as 
a mystery, viz. its adaptation to the Gentile races. Ephes. iii. 8. 
The special cause of his imprisonment was his proclamation of 
the gospel to the Gentiles, and his admission of converted 
heathens into the church without respect to the Mosaic law. 
They had, therefore, special reason to remember him in their 
prayers. Hallet’ says well, “that we Gentiles are indebted 
inconceivably more to the apostle Paul than we are to any 
man that ever lived in the world. He was the apostle of the 
Gentiles, and gloried in that character. While Peter went too 
far toward betraying our privileges, our apostle Paul stood up 
with a courage and zeal becoming himself. Tor us in par- 
ticular, as for the Gentiles in general, our invaluable friend 
laboured more abundantly than all the apostles. For ws he 


1 Notes, &e, vol. i. p. 382. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 4. Zia 


suffered. He was persecuted for this very reason, because he 
laboured to turn us from darkness to light, and to give to us 
the knowledge of salvation upon our repentance towards God, 
and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. How dear, then, should 
his memory ever be to us!” 

(Ver. 4.) “Iva φανερώσω αὐτὸ, we δεῖ με AaAjoa—* That I 
may make it manifest as I ought to speak.” Quite peculiar is 
the connection invented by Bengel—* δέδεμαι, ἵνα φανερώσω, 
vinctus sum ut patefaciam. Paradoxon.” We do not agree with 
Beza, Bihr, and De Wette, that the two conjunctions (iva) are 
parallel, and both depending on προσευχόμενοι, for the last 
one appears simply to develop the order of thought. They 
were to pray in order that God would open a door of utterance 
for him, and this in order that he might preach the gospel 
with all his original boldness and freedom. The one ἵνα, there- 
fore, depends upon the other—“ praying in order that God 
would open a door of utterance for me to speak the mystery 
of Christ, in order that this being granted I may make it 
manifest as I ought to speak.” Some understand by the 
phrase, “as 1 ought to speak,” the moral qualities of preaching 
—hbut Meyer thinks that the apostle refers simply to freedom of 
speech, to absence of physical restraint, or to unlimited power 
of travel from land to land. But the comprehensive phrase, 
“as I ought to speak,” may comprehend both sets of ideas, and 
certainly the context does not limit it to the latter. It is true 
that imprisonment deprived the apostle of the power of 
preaching at all, but when he says, “as I ought,” the preonant 
phrase refers not simply. to his commission, as the world’s 
apostle, and to the license of travel which it involved, but 
also to the spirit in which such duty should be discharged. 
For it might be surmised that what Paul had suffered for the 
gospel had lessened his love for it, or modified his views of 
the office which he held. And may we not suppose that the 
apostle wished the world to understand, that if he were 
liberated, there would be no abatement of his zeal, no sub- 
duedness of tone in his speech, no mutilation of his message, 
and no accommodation of it so as to avoid a recurrence of the 
penalty, but all his old fervour and power, all his former 
breadth of view, and all his uncompromising hostility to 


278 COLOSSIANS IV. 5. 


Jewish narrowness and bigotry—‘“ that 1 may make it manifest 
as I ought to speak.” The form of request presented to the 
Ephesians is more pointed. He twice asks them to pray for 
him, that he may speak with boldness, and he graphically 
depicts himself as an ambassador in chains. 

The exhortations of the two following verses refer to the 
outer aspects of Christian conduct, or such aspects of it as 
present themselves to the world. While they were to set 
their affections on things above, and mortify their “members 
which are upon the earth ;” while they were to put off certain 
vices, and assume certain virtues, culminating in love; while 
they were to be exemplary in every social relation—as hus- 
bands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants ; 
and while they were to be instant in prayer for themselves 
and for the apostle, all this ethical code referred to personal 
and mutual spiritual duties within the church. They must, 
however, in ordinary circumstances, come in contact with 
unbelieving heathenism around them. If they shrank entirely 
from such company, the inference of the apostle would be 
realized—“ for then must ye needs go out of the world.” But 
they were not to go out of the world because it was bad, they 
were to remain in it for the purpose of making it better. 
And that their conduct might exercise such a beneficial influ- 
ence they were thus enjoined— 

(Ver. 5.) Ἔν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς %w—* Walk in 
wisdom towards them which are without.” The verb περι- 
πατεῖν, When, as here, it has an ethical sense, is sometimes 
followed by κατά, as in Rom. vii. 4; xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 3, 
but more usually by ἐν; the shade of difference being, that in 
the former case, the ideas of source and similarity are implied, 
and in the latter the character or sphere of walk is principally 
indicated. The phrase οἱ %w—‘‘those who are without,” is 
found in 1 Cor. v. 12, and in 1 Thess. iv. 12, and points to 
persons beyond the pale of the church, and not simply or pro- 
minently the false teachers, as Junker supposes. Those with- 
out should be surrounded with every inducement to come in. 
No barrier should be thrown in their way, but the attractive 
nature of Christianity should be wisely exhibited to them. 
And as the life and practice of those within the church is 


COLOSSIANS IV. 5. 279 


what they especially look at and learn from, so the apostle 
says, “walk in wisdom—zpéc,” in reference to them. The 
admonition, as contained in Ephes. v. 15, is more general, and 
wants the pointed application which it bears here. 

The “wisdom” here enforced is more than mere pru- 
dence. [Ephes. v. 15.] It means that while Christians are to 
abstain from such sins as disgrace their profession, and are 
to preserve a holy consistency, adorning the doctrine of God 
their Saviour; they are also to exhibit, at the same time, not 
only the purity of the gospel, but its amiability, its strictness 
of principle in union with its loveliness of temper, its gener- 
osity as well as its rectitude, and its charity no less than its 
devoutness and zeal. Let “those without” not be told of 
Christian self-possession in a tone of irritation, or of Christian 
happiness while uneasiness sits on the brow of the speaker. 
Let no one wrangle about the duty of peacemaking, or bow 
his face to the earth as he tries to expatiate on the hope of the 
gospel. The world’s Bible is the daily life of the church, 
every page of which its quick eye minutely scans, and every 
blot on which it detects with gleeful and malicious exactness. 
The same wisdom will assume the form of discretion in 
reference to time and place. Unwise efforts at proselytism 
defeat their own purpose; zeal without knowledge is as the 
thunder shower that drenches and injures, not the rain that 
with noiseless and gentle descent softens and fertilizes. The 
great Teacher Himself has said, “Give not that which is holy 
unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, 
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and 
rend you.” Matt. vii. 6. 

Tov καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι---“ Redeeming the time.” Cony- 
beare renders—“ and forestall opportunity.” The clause has 
been explaimed under Ephes. v.16. The general meaning is 
‘purchasing, or seizing on the opportunity.” The preposition 
ἐκ, In composition, according to Ellicott, directs the thought to 
the undefined times or circumstances out of which, in each 
particular case, the καιρός was to be bought; a notion different 
only in aspect from our view given under Ephes. v. 17, which 
takes ἐκ to represent “out of another’s possession,” a view 
which appears to us to be more in harmony with the spirit of 


280 COLOSSIANS LV. 6. 


the figure. The immediate reference is to the injunction of the 
preceding clause. Every season for exercising such wisdom is 
to be eagerly improved, or no opportunity for its display is to 
be trifled with or lost. The idea of the Greek expositors is 
foreign to the purpose—“ the time is not yours, but belongs to 
those who are without, for whose good you must employ it.” 
So Theodoret—ov« ἔστιν ὑμέτερος ὁ παρὼν αἰὼν, χρήσασθε 
αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ δέον. Not less away from the point is the defini- 
tion of Augustine—Quid est redimere tempus, nisi cum opus 
est, etiam detrimento temporalium commodorum, ad aeterna 
quaerenda et capessenda, spatia temporis comparare. ‘The 
reason annexed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, ‘“‘ because the 
days are evil,” is not found in the passage before us. 

The next verse, though it contains a sentiment, which is of 
ereat moment by itself, is yet closely connected with this 
which goes before it. 

(Ver. 6.) Ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι ἠρτυ- 
pévoc— Let your conversation be always with grace, sea- 
soned with salt.” The phrase λόγος ἐν χάριτι is, according to 
Robinson, equivalent to λόγος χαρίεις. But the noun χάρις 
signifies, perhaps, that gracious spirit which rules the tongue, 
and prompts it both to select the fittest themes, and to clothe 
them in the most agreeable and impressive form. Sirach xxi. 
16; Luke iv. 22; Sept. Ps. xlv. 3. It is not that χάρις τοῦ 
λόγου which Plutarch ascribes to the courtly Alcibiades, or 
that graciousness or blandness of tongue which is but mere 
politeness. It is vastly higher than what Bloomfield under- 
stands by it—“ terseness of thought and smartness of expres- 
sion.” Chrysostom says well, ‘it is possible to be simply 
agreeable—yapievriZeoPar—but we are to beware that this 
agreeableness fall not into indifference.” In Ephes. v. 29, the 
apostle gives a different and negative form of advice, but adds 
as the needed characteristic of Christian conversation—“ that 
which is good to the use of edifying.” 

To show his meaning yet more fully, the apostle employs a 
strong metaphor—‘ seasoned with salt.” The participle em- 
ployed is the ordinary culinary term. ‘The figure represents 
speech as lable to become insipid, or to lose spiritual piquancy 
unless it be seasoned with salt. The form ἅλατι, from ἅλας, 


COLOSSIANS IV. 6. 281 


seems to have belonged to the popular speech.' Salt has various 
applications in Scripture, such as the salt of the covenant and 
the salt of the sacrifice, and appears to be the symbol of what 
is quickening and conservative in its nature. We therefore 
demur to the notion of many commentators, that the term here 
refers principally, if not wholly, to wisdom. The Attic salt, 
indeed, was that wit which gave zest and sparkle to Athenian 
conversation. But it was not wisdom in any special sense. 
Nor can we agree with Meyer and Béhmer, that salt is, in 
Matt. v.13; Mark ix. 49, 50; or Luke xiv. 34; the symbol 
of wisdom. It is rather the symbol of that spiritual conserva- 
tive power which Christianity exerts on society and the world. 
Here it stands in explanation of χάρις, not specifically of 
σοφία. ‘True, indeed, χάρις involves σοφία, gracious words 
must be always wise words, but wisdom is here employed to 
characterize the walk, and grace to describe the “ fruit of the 
lips.” The conversation which λόγος denotes is to be 
seasoned with this condiment, that it may be in itself free 
from every pernicious taint and quality, that it may be 
relished by those who hear it, and that on them it may exercise 
a beneficial influence.” In Ephes. v. 29, the apostle says, 
“let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth.” Christ- 
ian speech is not to be insipid, far less to be corrupt, but it is 
to possess that hallowed pungency which shall excite interest 
in the inquirer, and that preservative flavour which may 
influence for good the mind and heart of those who, being 


1 Suidas affirms that it is used only in the phrase ἅλασιν #2. Buttmann, however, 
says that the word is only a euphonious form for Zag, ὃ 58. See also Suicer, 
sub voce, where there is much curious information. 

2 Baldwin (Professor Witebergensis, 1624) has a most extraordinary comment on 
this place. He understands the apostle to refer to wit—'‘ De salibus, et jocis in 
sermone hic est quaestio.” And he subjoins the following permissions and regula- 
tions:—‘' Modus tamen in jocis homine gravi ac prudenti, mult0 magis Christiano 
dignus est, qui et si precise et secundum omnes circumstantias prescribi non potest, 
ex his tamen regulis dignosci potest. 1. Joci sint docti qui moralia quedam sua 
urbanitate tacité instillant. 2. Ad jocandum non abutamur sacris scripturis. 3. 
Jocantes omnes seipsos tanttm sed et aliorum salis libenter audiant. 4. Obscura si 
qua forté excidunt, ambitu verborum tegenda sunt. 5. Non jocemur semper in 
aliorum gratiam, ne nos ipsos prostituamus. 6. Jocemur in tempore: nam apud 
tristes jocari intempestivum est, ut et in re seria. 7. Joci non sint affectati.” 
Ε, 240. 


282 COLOSSIANS IY. 6. 


without, are disposed to put questions to the members of the 
church. For, the apostle subjoins as a reason— 

᾿Εἰιδέναι πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς Evi ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι----“ That ye 
may know how it becomes you to answer each one.” Though, 
in certain cases the infinitive may stand for the imperative 
among the classical writers, there is no reason to adopt such 
a supposition here. Winer, ὃ 45, 7. Tremellius and Storr, 
however, translate by scitote, while Grotius, Bengel, and 
Huther, regard the verb as a kind of ablative gerund, seiendo. 
But the infinitive, as in other places, denotes the object, 
Matthiae, § 532. The Greek expositors commit a blunder, we 
think, in giving the phrase “every one” too extensive a 
meaning, and including in it the members of the church. 
Thus Theodoret, ἄλλως γὰρ τῷ ἀπίστῳ καὶ ἄλλως τῷ πιστῷ, 
&c. Chrysostom lays too much stress on external condition, 
for he says “ἃ prince must be answered in one way, and a 
subject in another, a rich man in one way, and a poor man in 
another,” and he adds a sarcastic reason, that the minds of 
rich and powerful men are feebler, more inflammable, and 
undecided — ἀσθενέστεραι, μᾶλλον φλεγμαίνουσαι, μᾶλλον 
διαῤῥίέουσαι. Ambrosiaster has a similar train of illustration. 
That of Primasius is better—aliter paganis, aliter Judaets, aliter 
haereticis, aliter astrologis, et caeteris est respondendum. 

For it is of those without that the apostle speaks, and each, 
as he puts his question, is to have a gracious and effective 
answer. ‘ Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” 
Prov. xvii. 21. One kind of answer will not suffice for all, but 
each one is to be answered as he should be. Therefore the 


1 εἰ And we may generally observe, that men of the weakest minds are ofttimes the 
most garrulous; they unconsciously try to make up in number of words what is 
obviously wanting in weight and wisdom: whereas men of much grace and sound 
intellect try to say much in few words: they bring massive thoughts within small 
compass: there is hardly anything they dread more than to seem to be talking much, 
and yet to be really saying nothing. And it is well worthy of remark also, that he 
never speaks much to edification who knows not when to cease fo speak. It is one 
thing to speak much, and another to speak with effect. Much talkativeness and 
much grace seldom go together. Speaking and thinking aright are widely different 
operations of the mind; and the one is often possessed in an eminent degree, while 
the other is almost entirely wanting. We may generally lay it down as a rule, that 
there is far the most depth where there is the least noise.”—Watson’s Discourses on 
the Colossians, pp. 370, 371. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 6. 283 


necessity of the “grace” and of the “salt.” The question 
might refer to various things. It might refer to evidence or 
to doctrine, to ritual or to ethics. It might embody an objec- 
tion, suggest a difficulty, or contain a peculiar solution. It might 
be a query, in which lurked a satire, or one that argued an 
humble and inquiring mind. Jt might be as aimless as Pilate’s 
interrogation, ‘what is truth?” or it might be the result of 
such an idle curiosity as that which moved the Athenian 
gossips on Mar’s hill to say, ‘we would know therefore what 
those things mean.” Or it might indicate a state of mind in 
which mingled feelings were in operation, as when the Jews 
at Rome came to the apostle’s lodging to hear of him what 
he thought. The tone of one querist might be that of 
scorn, of another that of earnest inquiry. One, as he asked 
information, might show that conviction had made some pro- 
gress; another, that his previous thoughts had been gross 
misconceptions. But each was to be answered as was becom- 
ing—according to the contents, the spirit, and the object of 
his question—answered so that he might at once receive 
enlightenment and impression, be charmed out of his hostility, 
reasoned out of his misunderstanding, guided out of his diffi- 
culty, awakened out of his indifference, and won over to the 
new religion under the solemn persuasion that it was foolish 
to trifle any longer with Christianity, and dangerous any more 
to oppose the claims of a Divine revelation, enriched with 
such materials, fortified with such proofs, and commended by 
such results to universal reason and reception. 1 Pet. iii. 1; 
1.15; 2 Tim. 11. 25,26. According to those passages meek- 
ness 15 one special element of the Christian answer. 

In fine, wholly out of place is the notion of Pierce, that the 
answer here referred to is that which Christians were often 
obliged to make to heathen rulers when summoned to appear 
before them. Elton, in his exposition of this epistle (1620, 
London), makes the following pithy application :—“ Wouldest 
thou then be able to speake fitly, and to good purpose on 
euery occasion, as in one particular case, in time of distresse, 
in time of trouble, and vexation of body or minde, wouldest 
thou be able to speake a word of comfort, and as the Prophet 
saith, Isai. 1. 4, know to minister a word in time to him that 


284 COLOSSIANS ΤΥ. 7. 


is weary? Oh then let thy tong be euer poudred with the 
salt of grace, haue in thy mouth at all other times gracious 
speeches, and certainly then thou shalt not be to seeke of 
sweete and comfortable words in time of neede. Many come 
to their friends whom they loue well, and wish well vnto, in 
time of their trouble, haply lying on their sicke beds, and are 
not able to affoord them one word of spirituall comfort, onely 
they can vse a common forme of speech, aske them how they 
doe, and say, they are sorry to see them so, and then they 
haue done: here is one speciall cause of it, their mouthes are 
not seasoned with gracious speaches at other times; they vse 
not to season their speech with grace at other times, and so it 
comes to passe that when they should, and (it may bee) would 
vse gracious and comfortable words, they cannot frame them- 
selues to them, but euen then also, they are out of season with 
them ;. learne thou therefore to acquaint thy selfe with holy 
and religious speeches, let thy mouth at other times be ex- 
ercised in speaking graciously, and then (doubtlesse) though 
thou canst not speake so eloquently, as some that foame out 
nothing but goodly speaches, yet thou shalt be able to speake 
to better purpose, because (indeede) it is not mans wit, but 
Gods grace, that seasons speach, and makes it profitable and 
comfortable.” 

The apostle did not wish to burden the epistle with any 
lengthened or minute account of his private affairs. There was 
much which all interested in him would naturally wish to know 
—his health, his means, his prospects, and plans. But the 
bearer of the epistle would make all necessary communications, 
and one so recommended as Tychicus was, would be eagerly 
listened to as he spoke to them of the aged prisoner at Rome. 

(Ver. 7.) Τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πάντα γνωρίσει ὑμῖν Τύχικος 6 aya- 
πητὸς ἀδελφὸς, καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος, καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν Κυρίῳ 
-ΟΥ all that concerns me Tychicus shall inform you—the 
beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the 
Lord.” The phrase τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ is a common one in Greek, 
as Elsner and Wetstein have abundantly shown. ‘Tychicus is 
honoured with three appellations. rst, he is called “the 
beloved brother,’ one of the sacred brotherhood, bound 
together by the tie of a common fatherhood in God. His 


COLOSSIANS IV. 8. 285 


apostolic dignity did not fill Paul with reserve toward any 
fellow-believer, but he owned and loved as a brother every 
one who was with himself in Christ. Besides this common 
spiritual relationship, Tychicus must have endeared himself 
to the apostle, and therefore possessed his entire confi- 
dence. See under Ephes. vi. 21. He was, secondly, “a 
trusty servant,” and as such carried this epistle, and was 
charged with these oral messages to Colosse and to Ephesus. 
The term διάκονος may mean, generally, one who spent his 
time and energies in connection with the church and that 
apostle who was one of its ornaments and bulwarks. In 
Ephes. vi. 21, he is called as here, “the beloved brother and 
trusty servant,” but the apostle adds in this place a third 
epithet — καὶ σύνδουλος — “and fellow-servant.” Official 
service of a general nature is implied in διάκονος, but under 
this term the apostle speaks of him as a colleague. See.under 
i. 7. The words ἐν κυρίῳ are referred by De Wette to all the 
three epithets, and by Meyer to the last two of them. The 
meaning is not different whichever view be adopted. But as 
the first two names have distinct and characteristic epithets 
attached to them, and the last has none, perhaps ἐν κυρίῳ is 
to be specially joined to it, for the fellowship in service is 
marked by the common object and sphere of it—‘ the Lord.” 
(Ver. 8.) There are in this verse two marked differences of 
reading. The Textus Receptus, followed by Tischendorf, reads 
ἵνα γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν -- That he might know your affairs ;” 
but the other reading is ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ judv—* That ye 
might know our affairs.” The last appears to be the most 
natural. The apostle had just said, “All about me shall Ty- 
chicus tell you, whom I have sent for this purpose, that ye 
might know how it fares with us,” and then he adds of him 
and Onesimus, “they will inform you of all things here.” 
Whereas, if the reading of the Received Text be adopted, a 
new idea is introduced—* that he might know your affairs ”— 
and one out of harmony with the twice expressed design of 
the mission. The common reading has the support of C, Ὁ" 
E, J, K, the Syriac and Vulgate Versions, and many of the 
Fathers. The other reading has, however, A, B, D', F, G, 
the text of Theodoret and Jerome. The phrase, εἰς αὐτὸ 


280 COLOSSIANS IV. 9. 


τοῦτο, refers to what has been said, viz. “all my state shall 
Tychicus declare unto you ;” and he adds, “I have sent him for 
this very purpose.” Is it conceivable that now the apostle 
should introduce another and very different purpose after this 
strong assertion? It 15 objected to this reading that it is copied 
from Ephes. vi. 22. But surely, in two epistles written at the 
same time, and carried by the same bearer, might not the 
same commission be given to him for both churches, and in 
the same words? If the other clauses of the commission are 
the same, why should this clause vary? The declared result. 
is the same in both places, and for both churches—* that he 
might comfort your hearts”—and there is no reason to suppose 
any difference in the process, for their hearts were to be com- 
forted by a direct and full knowledge of the apostle’s condition. 
The various lections may have arisen from omitting the syl- 
lable τε before τά, from their resemblance. One ancient 
Father has γνῷ re ta. Bengel takes γνῶ for the first person. 
The new reading is adopted by Scholz and Lachmann as 
editors, recommended by Griesbach, vindicated by Rinck, and 
followed by Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, and 
Huther. The reading then is— 

“Ov ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ 
np.av—“* Whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose 
that ye might know our affairs.” In the verb ἔπεμψα is a 
common idiom. ‘Tychicus could not be sent off till the letter 
was finished, and yet he says, forestalling the act, “I have 
sent him.” The Colossians were in distress at the apostle’s 
condition, and in sorrow for his imprisonment, but when 
Tychicus should tell them how he was circumstanced, and 
what his views and feelings were, how his mind was unruffled 
and his courage unsubdued, he would comfort their hearts 
—kal παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν. 

Tychicus was not to be despatched on this errand by himself. 
He had a companion whose history and change had been 
striking and peculiar in their nature. 

(Ver 9.) Sov ᾿Ονησίμῳ τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῳ.--- 
“ Along with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother.” 
Onesimus carried with him another and more special testi- 
monial and introduction to his master, Philemon. Onesimus 


COLOSSIANS IV. 10. 287 


had been a slave—had fled from his owner, and had, during 
his exile, been converted by the apostle. Le was sent back 
in his new character, “not now as a servant, but above a 
servant—a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much 
more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” On being 
converted he had become, and is now eulogized as, “a brother ;” 
and whatever may have been his delinquencies as a slave of 
Philemon, he is now commended as a faithful brother—one 
the genuineness of whose Christianity might be safely trusted. 
He was also “ one of themselves”—’E€ ὑμῶν, Colosse being 
either the place of his birth or his ordinary abode. 

Πάντα ὑμῖν γνωριοῦσι τὰ ὧδε--- They shall inform you of 
all matters here.” The phrase is of much the same meaning 
as τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ πάντα, in verse 7, only the last is more per- 
sonal, and the one before us more general in its nature. ‘The 
apostle knew well the anxiety of the Colossians about him, 
and he wished them to be amply gratified. 

The epistle is now brought to a conclusion by the introduc- 
tion of a few salutations. Those who send their greetings to 
Colosse, were either personally, or at least by name, known to 
the church. The Syriac translator, in rendering the Greek 
term “salute,” reverts to the old Hebrew form, and makes it 
—‘ask for the peace of.” 

(Ver. 10.) ᾿Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Αρίσταρχος 6 συναιχμάλωτός 
pou— Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you.” Aris- 
tarchus was a Macedonian, and a native of Thessalonica. 
Acts xix. 29; xx. 4; xxvii. 2; Phil. 24. He had been much 
in Paul’s society—was with him during the riot at Ephesus, 
and several of his journeys in Syria and Greece—was with 
him too when he sailed for Italy, in order to follow out his 
appeal to Cesar, and seems to have remained with him in 
Rome. He is here termed a “fellow-prisoner,” but in Phile- 
mon only a fellow-labourer; whereas in this epistle Epaphras 
is named a fellow-servant, but in Philemon a fellow-prisoner. 
From such an exchange of those epithets, it has been inferred 
that the imprisonment of Aristarchus was not compelled but 
voluntary. There was no charge against him, and no prosecu- 
tion. He seems to have attached himself to Paul, and he will- 
ingly shared his imprisonment, that the apostle might enjoy 


288 COLOSSIANS IV. 10. 


his service and sympathy. Probably, as Meyer suggests, his 
friends shared in his confinement by turns. It was Aris- 
tarchus who was with him when he wrote to the Colossians; 
but Epaphras had taken his place when, about the same 
period, he wrote to Philemon. 

Kat Μάρκος 6 ἀνεψιὸς BapvaBa. By ἀνεψιός, allied to 
nepos—nephew—is to be understood not nephew but cousin 
—geschwisterkind—“ sister's son,” by which term our trans- 
lators themselves probably meant cousin. Numb. xxxvi. 11. 
Hesychius defines it thus—aveyuol, ἀδελφῶν υἱοί." There seems 
no good reason to doubt that Mark is the John Mark referred 
to in Acts xii. 12, 25; xiii. 5,13; xv. 37—39. He was the 
occasion of the well known dispute and separation between 
Paul and Barnabas. On a former missionary tour, he had left 
them, and “went not with them to the work.” Paul, there- 
fore, thought it not good to take him,— and the contention 
was so sharp between them, that they parted asunder the one 
from the other.” Whether Paul or Barnabas was right in his 
opinion about Mark, we know not. His desertion of a former 
enterprise seemed to justify Paul’s opinion, and perhaps Bar- 
nabas thought too kindly cf a near relation. Yet his sub- 
sequent conduct seems to warrant the substantial soundness of 
the judgment of Barnabas. Mark was apparently reconciled to 
Paul afterwards, and may have given the apostle ample reason 
to retract his censure. It may be, too, that the very dispute 
about him awakened within him renewed energy and perse- 
verance. Again does Paul mention him with high commenda- 
tion, 2 Tim. iv. 11,—‘‘ Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, 
and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the 
ministry.” 

The name of Barnabas seems to be presented by Paul as a 
kind of passport to Mark. Barnabas must have been a name 
familiar to the Colossian church. His character must have 
endeared him to all who knew hin, or had heard of his hearty 


1 Lobeck, ad Phrynich. says, — ‘‘ Pollux dicit filios filiasque fratrum et sororum 
dict ἀνε ψιούς, ex his prognatos ἀνεψιαδοῦς, ἀνεψιαδᾶς." It is thus the same with 
éZader@es—* first-cousin.” The word rendered “nephews,” 1 Tim. ν. 4, as the 
translation of ἔκγονα signifies, as it often does in old English, not brothers’ and 


sisters’ children, but epotes—descendants generally, and especially τέκνα rtxvwy. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 10. 289 


evangelical labours. By birth a Levite, of the island of 
Cyprus, he was at a very early stage of its history converted 
to Christianity. At once he disincumbered himself of his 
worldly possessions, and devoted himself to the spread of the 
gospel. It was he who introduced Paul to the church in 
Jerusalem, and such was the confidence reposed in him, that 
he was sent as the deputy of the mother-church to Antioch, 
to bring back a faithful report of the progress of the gospel in 
that city. On his visit to the Syrian capital, the sacred his- 
torian says of him, Acts xi. 23, 24, ‘Who, when he came, 
and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them 
all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the 
Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost 
and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.” Bar- 
nabas, finding the field so ample and so inviting, went at once 
to Tarsus, and brought Saul with him to Antioch, and such was 
the great success of their joint labours in preaching Christ, that 
“the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Bar- 
nabas next went up to Jerusalem with funds to relieve the poor 
saints, and then Paul and he visited many places in company. 
He is found soon again at Antioch, and he was delegated to 
go up to Jerusalem to secure a settlement of the angry con- 
troversy as to the observance by Christians of the Mosaic law. 
Returning to Antioch with the apostolic finding, he continued 
some time there “teaching and preaching the word of the 
Lord.” It was after this period that Paul and he had the 
sharp contention about the fitness of Mark for the missionary 
tour which they had sketched for themselves. The last 
account of him is in these words—‘“‘and so Barnabas took 
Mark and sailed unto Cyprus.” ‘There seems every reason to 
believe that the society of Barnabas had a salutary effect on 
the mind of Paul, and at a period, too, when he might not be 
fully conscious of his powers and qualifications, nor be able to 
realize the high destiny which lay before him. Barnabas thus 
stood on the confines of the apostolic college, though he was 
not within it, and next to its members, he occupies a distin- 
guished place in the early church. Such, in fine, was the 
zeal and success of this ‘Son of Consolation,” such his pro- 


minence among the brethren, and so identified was he with the 
U 


290 COLOSSIANS IV. 10. 


apostles, that he seems to be classed among them. Acts xiv. 
4, So that we are disposed to infer that the mention of him 
here was not simply to point out Mark from others bearing 
the same name, but also to secure for him, through his 
relationship to Barnabas, a cordial welcome and reception at 
Colosse. 

Περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς---““ Concerning whom ye received 
instructions.” The antecedent is not Barnabas, as Theophy- 
lact supposes, but Mark. What these commands were, 
or by whom enjoined, what they contained, or when they 
were delivered, we know not. Some suppose that they were 
sent at this period by Tychicus—a supposition which the 
tense of the verb will not warrant. Vain is all conjecture, 
such as that of Anselm and Schrader, who think that the 
apostle alludes to previous advices of an opposite nature, 
which are here recalled; or that of Grotius, who refers the 
missive to Barnabas; or Huther, who ascribes it to some 
Christian community—von irgend einer Gemeinde; or Kstius, 
who so naturally assigns its origin to the Church of Rome.' 
Not a few imagine that the following clause contains the 
institutions— 

"Eady ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δέξασθε aité6v—* If he come to you, 
receive him.” But against this view is to be noticed the 
plural form ἐντολάς, implying that there was a variety of 
commands; and the omission of the article shows that it has 
no reference to what follows. This view, adopted by Calvin 
and Baumgarten-Crusius, seems, however, to have originated 
a various reading—ééEacAa, found in D’, F, G, and in the 
Syriac Version and Ambrosiaster —“‘ concerning whom ye 
have received commandment to receive him, should he come 
to you.” Such a reading at once betrays its exegetical origin. 
The present reading cannot be disturbed. We are therefore 
ignorant of these ἐντολαί, in their origin and purpose. But 
the apostle adds, parenthetically, for himself; concerning Mark, 
‘if he come to you, receive him.” Mark evidently purposed 
a journey which might lead him to Colosse, and the Colos- 


1 The view of Reuss, in his Geschichte der Neutest. Schriften, is both unnecessary 
and extreme, for he supposes by this language that there had been sent a previous 
epistle to the Colossians, which has been lost. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 11. 291 


sians were to give him, should he come among them, a kind 
reception. The verb δέχομαι is used, both in the classics and 
New Testament, to denote the welcome which one gives to 
an honoured guest—a quest-friend, as the Germans translate 
the Greek Eévoc. Matt. x. 14; ix. 5,48. The apostle con- 
tinues the list of salutations— 

(Ver. 11.) Kat ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος “lotcroc—“ And Jesus, 
who is named Justus.” Of this Jesus Justus we know 
nothing. Chrysostom and others would identify him with 
the Justus mentioned in Acts xviii. 7. That appears to have 
been a proselyte—this was a born Jew. 

The proper punctuation of the remaining clause is matter 
of doubt. It has been commonly read — oi ὄντες ἐκ περι- 
τομῆς, With a stop, ‘“ who were of the circumcision,” namely, 
Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus. And then the apostle 
adds—“ these only are my fellow-workers to the kingdom 
of God.” But it is plain that the apostle had many other 
fellow-workers, and that he means, that among the believ- 
ing Jews these only had co-operated with him. Such a 
necessary limitation of meaning has suggested another form 
of punctuation, which puts a stop after Ἰοῦστος, and com- 
mences with of ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς a new sentence— “ these 
being of the circumcision, they alone were my fellow-workers;” 
or, “of them of the circumcision, these alone were my fellow- 
workers.” This construction is adopted by Lachmann, 
Steiger, Huther, and Meyer. In such a case the phrase οἱ 
ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, is a species of anacoluthon. Such a 
construction, however, seems awkward. Indeed, by the first 
form of construction, the same result is obtained; for it is 
plain that in οὗτοι μόνοι, the writer limits himself to the cir- 
cumcision. By “the kingdom of God,” the apostle means the 
church—as a divine institute; and they were his colleagues 
not in the kingdom, but “unto the kingdom,” that is, unto its 
furtherance and consolidation. The preposition εἰς, has often 
such a signification. To consolidate and extend this king- 
dom was the end of his apostolical mission. These three Jews 
were the only parties of their race who lent him any assist- 
ance for this purpose at Rome, and of whom therefore he 
adds— 


292 COLOSSIANS IV. 12. 


Οἵτινες ἐγενήθησαν μοι παρηγορία --- ‘‘ Who indeed have 
been an encouragement to me.” The Syriac renders—“ and 
these only,” μα @Qudi0 The noun occurs only here. 
It signifies originally an address or exhortation, then it came 
to denote the result of such exhortation—comfort.' Still we 
apprehend it is comfort in the form of encouragement. The 
other believing Jews plagued the apostle, and he complains 
of them in the epistle to the Philippians, that they preached 
Christ “even of envy and strife—of contention, not sincerely, 
supposing to add affliction to my bonds.” Philip. i. 15,16. As 
the apostle of the Gentiles, and the zealous maintainer of the 
free and unconditioned admission of men to the church, with- 
out any reference to the law, Paul was an object of bitter 
prejudice to many Christian Hebrews. The names which 
follow are, therefore, those of persons of heathen birth. 

(Ver. 12.) ᾿Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Ἑπαφρᾶς 6 ἐξ tuwv— There 
salutes you Epaphras, one of you.” i. 7. Asa Colossian himself, 
Epaphras had a deep interest in them, and sends them his affec- 
tionate greeting. The apostle further characterizes EKpaphras 
as a servant of Christ—dovAo¢ Χριστοῦ. Some insist on put- 
ting no comma between ὑμῶν and δοῦλος. The reading of 
highest authority seems to be Χριστοῦ "Incov— a servant of 
Christ Jesus.” This good man, probably the founder of the 
Colossian church, could not forget them—for he was one of 
them by birth; and, as a servant of Christ Jesus, and one of 
their pastors, he had also a deep spiritual affinity with them. 
And not only so, but the apostle describes him further—as 

Πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς --- 
“ Always striving for you in his prayers.” Though he was 
absent, he did not forget them. ‘The best scene of memory is 
at the throne of grace. In proportion to the fervour of one’s 
affection will be the importunity of his petition. Love so 
pure and spiritual as that of Epaphras will produce an agony 
of earnestness. ‘There will be no listless or fitful askine—but 
a mighty and continual wrestling of heart. And the apostle 
witnesses that for this end Epaphras supplicated— 

“Iva στῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι 


1 Kypke, i loc. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 13. 293 


τοῦ Ozov— That ye may stand perfect and full-assured in all 
the will of God.”! The Stephanic reading πεπληρωμένοι, is 
not based on sufficient authority. The language of the clause 
is very expressive. Epaphras prayed that they might stand, 
and neither wander nor fall—stand perfect and full-assured— 
every grace of the Spirit within them, and their minds pos- 
sessing an undoubting and imperturbable persuasion on every 
point of Divine instruction, or of “the whole will of God.” 
It is a needless refinement on the part of Meyer to connect ἐν 
παντὶ θελήματι so closely with στῆτε, as the local-bestimmung ; 
and to take reX. καὶ πεπλ. as the modal-bestimmung. For 
the words ἐν θελήματι are, in our view, closely allied to 
τέλειοι Kal πεπλη. --- that they might be perfect and fully 
assured in the whole will of God. And we are the more con- 
firmed in our view when we turn to ii. 2, where the noun 
πληροφορία occurs in the phrase—‘ full assurance of under- 
standing.” And the allusion is plainly to the dangers which 
beset the Colossian church, and against which they are warned 
in the second chapter,—dangers in the form of seductive 
spiritualism and false philosophy, and against which the grand 
preservative was a perfect and full assured knowledge of the 
whole will of God. An imperfect or dubious acquaintance- 
ship with that will would at once lay them open to the strata- 
gems of the false teachers, who headed their errors with the 
title and varnished them with the semblance, of the “ Divine 
will,” and claimed for their theosophic dreams and ascetic 
statutes Divine authority. See under ii. 2. The preposition 
ἐν is not to be taken as εἰς, with Grotius; nor secundum, with 
Storr; nor yet durch—through, with Bihr. The apostle sub- 
joins a further testimony to Epaphras in the following verse. 
But there is no little variety of reading as to the quality or 
virtue ascribed to him. The Received Text reads— 

(Ver. 13.) Μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅτι ἔχει ζῆλον πολὺν ὑπὲρ 
bpaov— For I certify, in his favour, that he has great zeal for 
you.” This verse is confirmatory (yao) of the preceding. 
Instead of ζῆλον πολύν, A, B, C, &e., have πολὺν πόνον ; 
while D', F, G, have πολὺν κόπον. Some, again, read πόθον, 


' Ulphilas has here the expressive term allavaurstvans—all-doing —omnoperantes. 


294 COLOSSIANS IV. 14. 


and some ἀγῶνα. The best reading appears to be πόνον--- 
the Vulgate rendering it multum laborem. ‘The other readings 
-- ζῆλον, πόθον, and dywva—may have been so many glosses 
on the more difficult term πόνον, which occurs only else- 
where in the Apocalypse. Πόνος is toil or travail—such as 
that which attends a combat. Hesychius defines it by σπουδὴ, 
ἐπίτασις. It occurs several times in the Septuagint. This 
πόνος led to the previous prayerful ἀγών. This stress of 
spirit begat the anxious solicitude in prayer which the apostle 
has described in the former verse. But the paims and prayers 
of Epaphras were not confined to Colosse, for the apostle 
adds— 

Kai τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιεραπόλει----““ And for them 
in Laodicea, and for them in Hierapolis.” Laodicea and 
Hierapolis were cities of the same region as Colosse. See 
Introduction, chap. i. All the three towns were in Phrygia, 
and Epaphras was well known to the churches in them. He 
bore their names on his heart before the Lord in fervent and 
uninterrupted intercession. 

(Ver. 14.) ᾿Ασπάζεται tag Λουκᾶς ὃ ἰατρὸς 6 ἀγαπητὸς, 
καὶ Anuac— There salutes you Luke, the beloved physician, 
and Demas.” That this Luke was Paul’s companion does 
not appear to admit of any doubt; nor is there any reason for 
denying the old opinion, that he was the author of the third 
gospel. He is styled “the beloved physician,” either to 
distinguish him from others of the same name, or to specify 


1 An old commentator on Colossians thus defines right zeal:—‘‘ 1. Let it not be a 
pretended zeale as in Joash. 2. Nor a superstitious zeale as in Paule. 3. Nora 
passionate zeale, only for a fit, as in John at his first entrance. 4. Nor a malitious 
zeale as in persecutors, that thinke they doe God good seruice in vexing men wrong- 
fully. 5. Nor a wrong intended zeale, such as is the zeale of merit-mongers. 6. Nor 
a contentious zeale, such as theirs that make needlesse rents in the church. 7. Nor a 
secure zeale that is a zeale not raised by godly sorrow, or that is carried without care 
or feare of falling away. - 8. Nor an idle zeale that is all words without workes: the 
word is rendred labour sometimes, and it is certaine true zeale is spent about good 
workes. 9. Nor an ouercurious zeale, shewed either by sticking too much to the 
letter of scripture, or by prying into or harsh censureing of the lesser faults of others. 
10. Or a bitter zeale, that spends it selfe in rayling and fiery reproches, railers sel- 
dome stand long. 11. Or an ignorant bold zeale such as was in the Iewes. Or 
lastly a selfe conceited zeale, when men trust too much to themselues, and their 
owne iudgements.”—Byfield. London, 1615, 


COLOSSIANS IV. 15. 295 


the peculiar office in which he had endeared himself to the 
apostle. The health of the apostle, as they might know, had 
been signally benefited by his medical skill, and that this 
might be at all times available to his patient, Luke attached 
himself to his person, accompanied him in several of his mis- 
sionary tours, was with him in his voyage to Rome, and 
remained with him in the Italian metropolis. Luke is men- 
tioned in Philemon 24; in 2 Tim. iv. 11. [Ὁ is said in Ecclesi- 
asticus xxxvill. 1, 2, ‘‘Honour a physician with the honour 
due unto him for the uses which ye may have of him, for the 
Lord hath created him, for of the Most High cometh healing.” 
Sir Thomas Browne, however, in the first chapter of his Religio 
Medict, says, that “several circumstances might persuade the 
world he had no religion,” and among them he mentions— 
“the general scandal of my profession.” It was, indeed, a 
common saying,—uwbi tres medici, duo athet. Luke might have 
been an example to the profession. His physico-spiritual 
character is happily delineated in the following epigram : 
“‘ Pandit evangelii et medecinge munera Lucas 
Artibus hine, illine relligione valens. 


Utilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri 
Utilior per quem tot didicere mori.”! 


Who Demas was, we know not. He seems to have been the 
person who afterwards left the apostle on account of his love 
of the world; and the name has no distinctive or eulogistic 
epithet added to it, as if the apostle had suspected this future 
estrangement—an estrangement which we are perhaps not 
warranted to identify with absolute apostacy. 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
The word itself, as has been remarked, is Greek, and not 
Hebrew, as Schoettgen thought; for he supposes it to be a Greek 
form of», ending in ae, and not ιος---ὃ5 δήμιος would mean 
carnifex. It is probably a contraction of Δημήτριος. 

(Ver. 15.) ᾿Ασπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφοὺς, καὶ 
Νυμφᾶν, καὶ τὴν Kar οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν. The various 
readings in the verse are not very important. Some read 
Νύμφαν as a female name, and write αὐτῆς, like B, in agreement 
of gender. Others, for the opposite reason, support the form 


1 Webster and Wilkinson’s New Testament, p. 206. 


290 COLOSSIANS IV. 16. 


αὐτοῦ; while A, C, and others, read αὐτῶν, but αὐτοῦ seems 
to have highest authority. “Salute the brethren in Laodicea, 
and Nymphas, and the church in his house.” The Colossian 
church was, in the apostle’s name, to salute the sister church 
in Laodicea, especially not forgetting in such a greeting 
Nymphas, and the church in his house. The first καί pomts 
out Nymphas as worthy of distinction, and probably the last 
καί introduces the explanation. The church in his house 
could not, as Bihr supposes, be the whole Laodicean church ; 
nor can the words, as some of the Greek Fathers opine, mean 
simply the family of Nymphas, all of whom were Christians. 
Some portion of the Laodicean believers, for what reason we 
know not, statedly met for worship in the house of Nymphas; 
and Meyer has shown that if αὐτῶν were the right reading, as he 
thinks it is, such a use of the plural is not against Greek usage. 

(Ver. 16.) Καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, 
ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ, καὶ 
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς avayvere— And when this 
epistle has been read among you, cause that it be read also 
in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye too read that 
from Laodicea.” The construction ποιήσατε, ἵνα belongs to 
the later Greek. Matthiae, § 531, 1. Nor should we say that 
in such a case ἵνα is ecbatic, for though result be described 
in the clause which follows it, design is clearly expressed by 
the verb which precedes it. ‘The apostle alludes to the public 
reading of his letter in the churches, and recommends an 
exchange of epistles. The epistle sent to Colosse and read 
there, was to be sent to Laodicea, and read there too. The 
words παρ᾽ ὑμῖν signify “among you,” not by you; and 
ἡ ἐπιστολή is the one which the apostle was at that moment 
writing. But the difficulty lies in determining what the 
Colossians were to read in turn, or what document is meant 
by the phrase τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ---- that from Laodicea.” The 
apostle’s language is not explicit, inasmuch as the Colossians 
would understand at once the reference made by him. But 
the question is, does ἐκ point to the origin or authorship of the 
epistle, or only to its present locality? Was it an epistle 
which had come to Paul from Laodicea, or would it need only 
to be brought out of Laodicea in order to be read at Colosse ? 


COLOSSIANS IV. 16. 297 


The expression is pregnant and idiomatic. 

1. Many have taken it to mean a letter which Paul himself 
had received from the church in Laodicea. Theodoret, Pho- 
tius, Calvin, Estius, Erasmus, Beza, van Til, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and others, hold this view, though they can only con- 
jecture as to the nature and contents of such a document. 
But the principal support of such a view is the assumed 
meaning of ἐκ, in the phrase ἐκ Λαοδικείας. It is argued that 
ἐκ denotes origin. True, but the texture of the verse shows 
that the epistle is supposed to be in Laodicea, when they 
were to try and get it owt of that city. It was to be brought 
from Laodicea to them, and by their own endeavour. 
Besides, as Dr. Davidson remarks, “It is difficult to con- 
ceive of the mode in which the apostle’s injunction could 
have been carried into effect. It is very unlikely that the 
Laodiceans kept a copy, or that Paul knew of it. Or if 
it be conjectured that Tychicus and Onesimus, the bearers 
of the Colossian letter, carried that which the apostle 
had received from the Laodiceans, the idea is inconsistent 
with ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς avayvere τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ; 
implying endeavour to get the Luaodicean epistle.”' Nor is 
there any hint in the epistle to the Colossians, that it is a 
reply to any queries or communications, the reading of which 
might cast light on those of its statements which served the 
purpose of an answer. 

2. Others take it for some epistle written at Laodicea, either 
supposing it, like Theophylact, to be the First Epistle to 
Timothy, according to the common subscription; or like 
Lightfoot, the First Epistle of John; or as Jablonsky opined, 
an epistle written to the Colossian pastors generally; or as 
Storr and Flatt would think, one specially addressed to 
Epaphras. Such suppositions are as easily refuted as they are 
made. Philastrius of Brescia, Schultess, Stein, in his appendix 
to his commentary on Luke, and Schneckenburger, suppose 
the Epistle to the Hebrews to be intended. It cannot be the 
early uncanonical production now known by the title of the 
Epistle of Laodicea, a document which Hutter translated out 


' Introduction, vol. ii. p. 134. 


208 COLOSSIANS IV. 16. 


of Latin into Greek, and of which Jerome said—ab omnibus 
exploditur. Marcion, in his canon, according to Tertullian, 
gave the Epistle to the Ephesians the title of the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans. [Commentary on Ephesians, Introduction, p. xx.] 

3. The more probable opinion is, that it is an epistle sent 
by Paul to Laodicea at this very period. The epistles were 
to be interchanged. And the interchange 15 naturally this— 
that the Laodiceans read the epistle which had been sent to 
Colosse, and the Colossians the epistle which had been sent to 
Laocdicea.' Wieseler argues that the epistle meant is that to 
Philemon. But it is hard to prove that either Archippus or 
Philemon was a Laodicean. It would certainly be strange for 
the Colossian church to send Paul’s charge to the minister of 
another church, when, according to Wieseler, there was an 
epistle destined for individuals in the same community. Then, 
again, as has been observed, what is there in the private letter 
to Philemon to make it of general use at Colosse? Again, 
many, as Biihr, Steiger, Bohmer, and Anger, who hold that 
the Epistle to the Ephesians is a circular letter, believe it to 
be here meant, while some maintain that its original destina- 
tion was Laodicea. But how, it might be asked, how did 
the apostle know that the encyclical epistle should have 
reached Laodicea just at the time when his letter should 
arrive at Colosse? The spirit of the injunction in verse 16, 
seems plainly to imply that both letters were despatched at 
once, and the same might be inferred from the apostle’s desire 
expressed in 11. 1, that the Laodiceans as well as the Colos- 
sians, should be aware of his intense solicitude for them. 
Tychicus, as Meyer suggests, would travel through Laodicea to 
Colosse, and he would there impart the oral confirmation that 
the letter referred to by the apostle was lying at Laodicea. 
This arrangement being known to the apostle gave precision 
to his language. _One difficulty in our way is the fact that 
Paul bids the Colossian church salute the brethren in Lao- 
dicea. Why do so, it is asked, if himself despatched a letter 
at the same time to Laodicea? But the salutation sent through 
the Colossians would manifest the apostle’s desire that both 


! Chronologie des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 452. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 16. 299 


churches should cherish a sisterly attachment, and the trans- 
mission of the apostle’s salutation to Laodicea would be a 
fitting occasion for the interchange of epistles. 

But will the phrase τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας bear such a meaning ? 
There is no doubt that it may, the preposition showing that 
the letter was there, and to be brought out of that city. The 
idiom means that the letter was there, or would be found 
there, and was to be carried thence. Thus, Biihr refers to 
Luke xi. 13—6 πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δῶσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον--- 
where the particle ἐξ characterizes the descent of a gift out 
of heaven, and from One who is in heaven. Matt. xxiv. 17 
has also been referred to—dpa τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας avtov—but 
the similarity of construction is not so close. The case 
of ἀπό, in Heb. xiii. 24, and the reverse one of εἰς in Luke 
ix. 61, come under a similar law. Compare 2 Cor. ix. 2; 
Philip. iv. 22. The law is based on what is called the 
attraction of prepositions, when, for example, instead of a 
preposition denoting rest being used, the idea of motion 
is attracted from the verb, which either expresses it or implies it, 
and a preposition signifying such motion is employed. 
Kiihner, § 623; Winer, § 63, 6. The idea of fetching the 
epistle out of the city of Colosse was present to the writer's 
mind, and so he says 2x—the epistle to be gotten owt, and not 
zy—the epistle now lying in Laodicea. This ascertained usage 
puts an end to the objections of the Greek expositors, who 
affirm that this view would necessitate such a phrase as τὴν 
πρὸς Λαοδικέας. 

The inference, of course, is that this epistle is lost, like many 
others of the apostle’s writings. Probably it was wholly of a 
temporary and local nature, and therefore has not been pre- 
served.’ An inspired writing is not necessarily a canonical one. 


We subjoin a copy of the spurious epistle referred to at bottom of p, 297 :— 


1. Paulus apostolus, non ab hominibus, 
neque per hominem, sed per Jesum Chris- 
tum, fratribus qui estis Laodicez. 

2. Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre 
et Domino nostro Jesu Christo. 


3. Gratias ago Christo per omnem 
orationem meam, quod permanentes estis 


1. Paul an apostle, not of men, neither 
by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the 
brethren which are at Laodicea. 

2. Grace be to you, and peace from 
God the Father, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

3. IT thank Christ in every prayer of 
mine, because ye continue and persevere 


300 COLOSSIANS IV. 17. 


This interchange of epistles was a salutary custom; it made 
an epistle sent to one church to become, in reality, the com- 
mon property of all the churches, and it led in no very long 
period to the formation of the canon of the New Testament. 

(Ver. 17.) Kat εἴπατε ᾿Αρχίππῳ. Βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν 
παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς --- “ And say to 
Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast re- 
ceived in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.” Archippus is men- 
tioned also in Philemon. ‘There is no ground for the opinion 
of Michaelis, Storr, Wieseler, and Theodoret, based on the Apos- 
tolic Constitutions, vii. 46,‘ that Archippus was a Laodicean. 


et perseverantes in operibus bonis, pro- 
missionem expectantes in die judicii. 

4. Neque disturbent vos quorundam 
vaniloquia insimulantium veritatem, ut 
vos avertant a veritate Evangelii, quod a 
me preedicatur. 

5. Et nunc faciet Deus, ut qui sunt ex 
me, perveniant ad perfectum veritatis 
Evangelii, sint deservientes, et benigni- 
tatem operum facientes, que sunt salutis 
vite τίου. 


6. Et nune palam sunt vincula mea, 
qu patior in Christo, in quibus ltor et 
gaudeo. 

7. Scio enim quod hoc mihi est ad sa- 
lutem perpetuam, quod factum est ora- 
tionibus vestris, administrante Spiritu 
Sancto. 

8. Sive per vitam, sive per mortem, 
est mihi vivere vita in Christo, et mori 
gaudium. 

9. Et ipse Dominus noster in nobis 
faciet misericordiam suam, ut eandem 
dilectionem habeatis et sitis unanimes. 

10. Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis pree- 
sentiam Domini, ita sentite, et facite in 
timore; et erit vobis vita in efernum. 


11. Est enim Deus, qui operatur in 
vobis ; 

12. Et facite sine peccato quacunque 
facitis. 


in good works, looking for that which is 
promised in the day of judgment. 

4. Let not the vain speeches of any 
trouble you, who pervert the truth, that 
they seduce you from the truth of the 
gospel which is preached by me. 

5. And now may God effect it, that 
my converts may attain to a perfect 
knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be 
beneficent, and doing good works which 
are connected with the salvation of eter- 
nal life, 

6. And now my bonds which I suffer 
in Christ, are manifest, in which I re- 
joice and am glad. 

7. For I know that this shall turn to 
my salvation for ever, which is secured 
through your prayer, and the supply of 
the Holy Spirit. 

8. Whether by life or by death; [for] 
to me shall be a life in Christ, to die will 
be joy. 

9. And our Lord Himself will grant 
us His mercy, that ye may have the 
same love and be likeminded. 

10. Wherefore, my beloyed, as ye have 
heard of the coming of the Lord, so think 
and act in fear, and it shall be to you 
life eternal ; 

11, For it is God, who worketh in 
you; 

12. And do without sin 
things ye do. 


whatever 


1 The δὲ ἐν Pevy ia Λαοδικτίας Αρχιπαοξ, Ῥ. 187, ed. Ueltzen, 1852. 


COLOSSIANS IV. 17. 301 


Philem. 2. What the motive of the apostle in sending him this 
exhortation was, we do not know. It would be an un- 
warranted suspicion, on the one hand, to suppose that Archip- 
pus was in danger of proving unfaithful; and it is no less a 
baseless notion of Bengel, on the other hand, that he was 
either in sickness or old age, and not far from the end of 
his career. The form εἴπατε is peculiar. Winer, ὃ 15. In 
construing the exhortation, it serves no purpose to take back 
ἵνα from its place, and read βλέπε ἵνα, for what then should 
come of airiv? 2 John 8. The phrase “in the Lord” has 
not the same meaning as “from the Lord,” with which some 
would identify it. It points out the source of the ministry, not 
simply, but by describing the sphere in which it was given 
and received. It was “in the Lord”—the recipient was in 
union with the Lord himself, and the ministerial function was 
conferred upon him, and accepted by him under no foreign 
influence, obligation, or motive. Whatever this ministry was, 
and we cannot determine its nature, whether it be the diaconate 
specially or the pastorate generally, it was therefore a divine 
office which Archippus held. He had “received it in the Lord,” 
and the charge was, that he was to see to it “that he fulfilled 
it.” Acts xii. 25. This was to be his solicitude, to discharge 
all the duties which such an office laid upon him, and to fill 
up with holy activity that sphere which the Lord had marked 


13. Et quod optimum est, dilectissimi, 
gaudete in Domino Jesu Christo, et cavete 
ommes sordes in omni lucro. 

14. Omnes petitiones vestre sint palam 
apud Deum; estote firmi in sensu Christi. 


15. Et que integra, et vera, et pudica, 
et casta, et justa, et amabilia sunt, facite. 


16. Et que audiistis et accepistis, in 
corde retinete, et erit vobis pax. 


17. Salutant vos omnes sancti. 

18. Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi 
cum spiritu vestro. 

19. Hane facite legi Colossensibus, et 
eam, que est Colossensium, vobis. 


Amen. 


13. And what is best, my beloved, re- 
joice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid 
all filthy lucre. 

14, Let all your requests be made 
known before God, and be firm in the 
doctrine of Christ. 

15, And whatsoever things are sound, 
and true, and of good report, and chaste, 
and just, and lovely, these things do. 

16. And those things which ye have 
heard, and received, keep in your hearts, 
and peace shall be with you. 

17. All the saints salute you. 

18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 
be with your spirit. Amen. 

19. Cause that this Epistle be read 
among the Colossians, and the Epistle of 
the Colossians to be read among you. 


902 COLOSSIANS IV. 18. 


out for him. There is no occasion to adopt the idea of 
Grotius, that the verb πληροῖς is any imitation of the Hebrew 
xbo, as applied to the consecration of a priest, for the word is found 
with a similar sense in the classics and in Philo. Some suppose 
that Archippus was holding office in the absence of Epaphras, 
others that he was a son of Philemon, and deacon under his 
father as pastor. It has been said, that it marks the free inter- 
course of the early churches, when such an address should be 
made by a church to one of its ministers. Only, it should be 
borne in mind, that the church was simply the vehicle of com- 
munication. It was an admonition of Paul to Archippus 
through the church. The idea of Theophylact is, that Paul 
sends him the admonition so openly, for this purpose, that 
when he had occasion to rebuke any members of the church, 
they might not deem him bitter or censorious, for they would 
recall the apostle’s charge to him, and esteem him for so 
faithfully obeying it. 

(Ver. 18.) Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου---“ The saluta- 
tion οἵ 3Baul With mine on Hanv.’? Having employed an 
amanuensis in writing the previous portion of the epistle, the 
apostle authenticates it by adding his salutation in his own 
hand. 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. ii. 17. What associations 
and feelings that handwriting would excite! Many an eye 
would be moistened as it gazed upon it. Not only does 
he write the salutation himself, but he adds, with his own 
hand too, the remaining clauses. 

Μνημονεύετέ μου τῶν Scouov— Remember mp bonds,”’ a 
brief but pathetic request. The alternative view of Heinrichs 
is a very miserable one—stipendio mihi mittendo. Nor can 
we, with Olshausen and others, confine the mode of remem- 
brance craved by the apostle simply to supplication for him. 
As Meyer says —jede Beschrinkung ist unbefugt— every 
limitation is unwarranted.” Every possible form of remem- 
brance they were besought to cherish. With every mention 
of his name, or allusion to his work, his chain was to be 
associated. Every picture which their mind’s eye formed of 
him was to be that of a prisoner. When they felt their obliga- 
tions to him as an apostle, they were to think of his captivity. 
Their freedom of religious observance was to suggest to them, 


COLOSSIANS 1V. 18. 303 


by the contrast, his incarceration. When they asked a blessing 
on their spiritual benefactors, they were not to forget the 
fetters of him—the apostle of the Gentiles. ‘“ Remember my 
bonds.” When his right hand penned the salutation of the 
previous clause, no wonder he felt his bonds so keenly, and 
spoke of them, for at the same moment his left hand was 
chained to the right arm of the Roman soldier who kept him. 
And now he bids them farewell— 

‘H χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ---“ Grace be with μοι." The adieu is 
brief, but expressive. The apostle concludes as he began, 
with an earnest benediction, a prayer for fulness of blessing, 
alike for their present and eternal welfare. The ᾿Αμήν of the 
Received Text is not well authenticated, and the subscription, 
though correct, is necessarily spurious. 


ERRATA IN THE WORK. 


Page 20, line 14 from the top, for deg read ὑπὲρ. 
Shor 1 DUS foqpie Weare sie the Father read this Father. 
Ga ees LS) ek Oe ὃς read os. 
2p τος. θθση ile ess ᾿Εῤῥιζομοένος read ᾿Εῤῥιζωμένος. 
DAD Scena Wank eee himself read him. 


INDEX. 


“ Absent in the flesh but present in the 
spirit,” meaning of, 120. 

Abstinence from meats and drinks no test 
of genuine piety, 202. 

Acting ‘in the name of Christ ” the high- 
est morality, 254. 

Aim of the preacher should be to reach 
every individual, 102. 

Alienation from God characteristic of man- 
kind, 80. 

Angels drawn nearer to God and man by 
the work of redemption, 75. 

“ Answering every one” illustrated, 282. 

Asceticism a libel on Providence, 201, 

Assurance, the blessedness of, 247. 

Atoning sacrifice of Christ the source of 
peace, 77. 


Barnabas, notices of his history, 288. 

Basil’s encomium on the Psalms, 253. 

ἐς Beholding your order” explained, 122. 

Believers ‘‘ complete in Christ,” 147, 

Benefits of “‘ full assurance of understand- 
ing,” 111, 293. 

Blessedness of heaven, 98. 

Blessing, Divine forgiveness, a first and 

rominent, 40. 

“Blotting out the handwriting against us,” 
meaning of the phrase, 162. 

Bonds of Paul suttered for the sake of the 
Gentiles, 276, 302. 

“ Buried in baptism” no allusion to the 
mode of that ordinance, 153. 


“ Circumcision of Christ ” spiritual, 151. 

——, the, ‘‘not made with hands,” 149. 

Children, duties of, to their parents, 260. 

Christ the Creator of “thrones, and do- 
minions, and principalities, and powers,” 
54, 

—— pre-eminent as Creator, 68. 

pre-eminent as the fountain of bless- 
ing, 69. 

—— pre-eminent in the constitution of 

His person, 69. 

—— the image of God” in His Divine 

works, 45. 

“___ the image of God” in His media- 
torial person, 44. 

“____ the image of God” in perfection, 
44, 

—— the essence of the gospel, 125. 

—— the hope of glory subjectively and 
objectively, 99. : 

—— the pattern after which His followers 
are to forgive one another, 243. 

‘¢____ our life” explained, 219. 

— not simply the instrumental, but 
primary, cause of creation, 56. 


te 


Christ’s body, though on the throne, not 
deified, 49. 

qualifications for being head of the 
church, 64. 

Christian truth in the heart the source of 
comfort and guidance, 250. 

— union, love the prime element of, 110. 

Christian’s life ‘‘ hidden,” the, because on 
earth not openly manifested, 216. 

Church defined, 64. 

----ς Christ the source of its existence 
and blessing, 64. 

Colosse, city of, ix. 

—— , church of, xiv. 

——, Epistle to, its genuineness, xxii. 

——, contents of, xxxix. 

-- time and place, xly. 

——, works on, xlv. 

——, errorists in, Xxx. 

‘*Commandments and doctrines of men,” 
of no authority in religion, 198. 

“Conversation seasoned with salt,” ex- 
plained, 280, 

Covetousness, how styled idolatry, 223. 

Creation, work of, ascribed in its fullest 
sense to Christ, 52, 60. 

— universally affected by the death of 
Christ, 77. 

Cross, the symbol of peace, 78. 


ες Dead in trespasses” death spiritual, 157. 

ἐς with Christ,” infers mortification of 
the sensuous members, 221. 

Death to sin, and death in sin, distin- 
guished, 160. 

to the world, separation from the 
elements of the world, 197. 

Dietetic regulations of the law laid aside 
under the gospel, 176. 

Dignity and rank of Christ described, 42. 

Divine forgiveness daily needed, 40. 

—— polity, highest conceptions of, in the 
gospel, 116. 

Divinity and humanity personally united 
in Christ, 144. 

Divinity of Christ proved by His forgiving 
sin, 243. 

Doctrine, to be tested by the estimation in 
which it holds Christ, 140. 

Dogmas of the false teachers of Colosse, 
42, 117. 

“Door of utterance,” meaning of the 
phrase, 275. 


Efficacy of prayer, 274. 

Election not determined by character, but 
determines it, 237. 

Epaphras, earnest prayers of, for the Co- 
lossians, 292. 


x 


800 


Epaphras, teaching of, sanctioned by apos- 
tolic authority, 17, 292. 

ἐς Epistle from Laodicea,” what it was, 296. 

Epistles, interchange of, among the early 
Christians useful, 300. 

Errors existing in Colosse, 42. 

Errorists of Colosse did not ‘hold the 
head,” 191. 

Eternity of Christ, 58. 


“Faith established and abounding,” 128. 

Faith the instrumental means in the spirit- 
ual resurrection, 155. 

Falsehood unworthy of men spiritually 
renewed, 226. 

Fellow-labourers, Jewish, present with 
Paul, 291. 

‘Filling up what is wanting of the aftlic- 
tions of Christ,” meaning of the phrase, 
8 


7. 

Final glory illustrated, 34, 98, 220. 

—— purpose contemplated by Christ in 
creation, 56, 

“First-born of every creature,” meaning 
of the phrase, 47. 

——, probably a fundamental term with 
the Colossian errorists, 50. 

Forgiveness bound up with subsequent 
Divine gifts, 41. 

—— more closely connected with redemp- 
tion than any other blessing, 41. 

—— of sin a necessary accompaniment of 
spiritual life, 161. 

Formal allusions to religion in daily busi- 
ness, abuse of piety, 255. 

Fountain of every blessing is in Christ, 65. 

Fruitbearing in the believer illustrated, 26. 

“Full assurance of understanding,” mean- 
ing of the expression, 111. 

“Fulfilling the Word of God,” meaning of 
the phrase, 94. 

‘“‘Fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily ” 
in Christ, 141. 

Fulness of saving blessing in Christ, 71. 


Gentiles especially indebted to Paul, 276, 
292. 


——, Paul specially a minister of the, 93. 

God the source of meetness for the inheri- 
tance of the saints, 35. 

“ God’s glory,” the phrase explained, 28. 

God’s love to the Son, 38. 

—— pleasure that “all fulness should 
dwell in Christ,” 70. 

Gospel, the, fruitbearing and diffusive, 14. 

“Grace in truth,” grace in its genuine 
form, 16. : 

Graces becoming the ‘elect of God,” 240. 

Grace the grand characteristic of the gos- 

el, 15. 

Gruen profound, due to Christ, 250. 

—,, why a duty of believers, 32. 

Grounds of thanksgiving on behalf of the 
Colossians, 9. 


‘‘Head of principality and power,” Christ 
the, 148. 
Heavenly glory, why an object of hope, 10. 


INDEX. 


Hebrew ceremonial wanting in spiritual 
power, 181. 

Heresies, allied to false philosophy, 131. 

“‘ Hope of glory,” the future blessedness of 
believers, 98. 

Hierapolis, xi. 

Humility necessary in considering the rela- 
tions of the Divine nature, 43. 

——, spurious, 184. 

Husbands, duties of, to their wives, 258. 


““Tmage of God” marks Christ’s pre-emi- 
nence, 68. 

“Tmage of God” the model of man spirit- 
ually renewed, 229. 

Inducements to seek “the things which 
are above,” 213. 

“ Tnheritance of the saints” allusion to the 
allotment of Canaan, 32. 

Intense earnestness of Paul, 104. 


Joy accompanying patience and long- 
suffering, 31 

—— of the apostle from being present with 
the Colossians in spirit, 121. 

Judaism fashioned to resemble Christianity , 
180, 


Kalendar, Jewish, abrogated under Christ- 
ianity, 176. 

“Kingdom of Christ” is present as well 
as future, 88, 

“Kingdom of darkness,” why so desig- 
nated, 56. 

Knowledge of God, aliment of spiritual 
growth, 27. 

—— possessed by man may be indefinitely 
enlarged, 230. 


Labours of Paul on behalf of the church 
unceasing, 93. 

Laodicea, city of, x. 

Law, the moral, in its condemnation, and 
the ceremonial in its rites, expunged by 
Christ’s death, 168. 

Life, God’s immediate gift, 161. 

““____ of faith” the, a life of hope, 85. 

——, spiritual, as it shall be developed at 
Christ’s second coming, 219. 

Light characteristic of the heavenly glory, 
33 


‘t Likeness to God” in regeneration, higher 
than that in creation, 235. 

Love exhibited by the Colossians, 18. 

‘*____ jn the Spirit” is love in the Holy 
Spirit, 19. 

—— of the Father toward the Son, 38. 

—— the perfection of the Christian char- 
acter, 245. 

the crown and result of the other 

graces, 19. 

to the saints, love to Christ, 7. 

Luke a companion of the apostle, 294. 


Mark, from whom Paul separated, recon- 
ciled to him, 288. 

Masters and servants are alike under 
Christ, 270. 


INDEX. 


Masters, duties of, to their servants, 268. 
Medium of spiritual life, union with Christ, 
217, 


““Meetness for the inheritance of the 
saints,” why necessary, 34. 

‘Mind, the fleshly,” capacitated only for 
sensuous objects, 189 

Mosaic economy, the, only rudimental, 
139 


- observances full of meaning, 179. 
‘Mystery hid from ages and generations,” 
meaning of, 95. 


“Name of the Lord Jesus,” everything to 
be done in the, 253. 

National distinctions immaterial in regen- 
eration, 235. 

‘‘New man,” descriptive of humanity re- 
newed, 228, 

Nouns with correlative verbs intensify the 
meaning, 28, 106. 


“Old man,” personification of depraved 
humanity, 227. 

Onesimus, ἃ converted slave, sent back to 
Colosse,- 286. 

Origin of sin, Miiller’s theory, 230. 


ἐπ τ training, quotation from Gisborne, 

Paternal kindness enjoined, 261, 

“¢ Patience and long-suffering” adjuncts of 
faith, 29. 

Paul, why named an apostle of Jesus 
Christ, 1. 

“ Peace of Christ,’’ what it is, 247. 

Peace resulting from Christ’s sacrifice, 77. 

“Perfect in Christ,” meaning of the phrase, 
104. 


Perseverance in faith essential to salva- 
tion, 84. E 

—— of the saints a distinct doctrine of 
Scripture, 85, 

Personal essence not the image of God in 
man, 233. 

Philosophy, advantages of true, in study- 
ing religion, 130. 

Prayer, etticacy of, 274. 

, false, prevalent among the Colos- 

sians, 133. 

on behalf of himself besought by 

Paul, 274. 

of the apostle on behalf of the Colos- 

sians, 7. 

on behalf of the Colossians unceas- 

ing, 20. 

and thanksgiving not to be con- 
founded, 273. 

Preaching, subject of, Christ, 101. 

, wisdom needed in, 103, 

Pre-eminence in all things belongs to 
Christ, 66. 

Pride in disguise the natural result of 
asceticism, 205, 209. 

‘“‘Principalities and powers spoiled” in 
Christ’s death, 171. 

“Putting off the body of the flesh,” regen- 
eration, 150. 


307 


“ Quickened with Christ,” a blessing en- 
joyed even on earth, 158. 


Race and social rank not lost on professing 
Christianity, 237. 

Reality and fulness of the gospel the cause 
why it is often rejected, 189. 

“ Receiving Christ Jesus the Lord,” is to 
receive Christ as Lord, 125. 

Reconciliation, final design of, 83. 

—, work of God, 81. 

“Reconciling all things,” meaning and 
reference of the expression, 73. 

Redemption exhibits Christ in the fulness 
of his essence, 57. 

—— obtained by virtue of union with 
Christ, 40. 

Regeneration not restricted to class, rank, 
or nation, 237. 

Resurrection of Christ, results of the, 66. 

Ritual of Moses a shadow of future bless- 
ings, 178. 

“Rudiments of the world,” meaning of the 
expression, 138, 195. 

Reward of faithful service, 265. 


Salutation of Paul peculiarly affecting, 302. 
Satan vanquished by the death of Christ, 
173. 


Science and philosophy not hostile to faith, 
129. 
Science, the highest, found in the gospel, 


Sensuality often visited with its appro- 
priate penalty on earth, 223 

Servants, duties of, to their masters, 265. 

Sinners exempted from condemnation 
through the cross, 171. 

Sins of malignity defined, 225. 

Social duties specially urged on the Asiatic 
churches, 256. 

Socinian hypothesis of Christ as creator 
unnatural and contradictory, 61. 

Spiritual characteristics of the heathen 
world, 79. 

“___ knowledge” conferred by the Holy 
Ghost, 24. 

Steadfast faith, its advantages and reason- 
ableness, 123. 

Success in winning souls to be traced to 
Divine power, 105. 


Thanksgiving on behalf of the Colossians, 
4 


—— rendered to God as the Father of 
Christ, 5. 

“Things above” supreme, “things below” 
subordinate, 215. 

Timothy, how associated with Paul in writ- 
ing the epistle, 2. 

joined with Paul in expressing the 
sentiments of the epistle, 5. 

Traditions of men, 135, 198. 

Translation into the kingdom of Christ 
described, 37. 

Tychicus, the bearer of the epistle to the 
Colossians, 284, 


808 


Unceasing thanksgiving on behalf of the 
Colossians, 6. | 

Union to Christ, the efficacious principle in | 
the spiritual resurrection, 154. 

Unity and nourishment of the church, 
Christ the source of, 193. 

Universal being, Christ the preserver of, 


“ Visible and invisible,” a common expres- 
sion in Eastern philosophy, 53. 

——, meaning of the expression, 53. 

Voluntary suffering, intensely fascinating 
to many minds, 209. 


“ Walking,” figuratively descriptive of a 
person's tenor of life, 24, 224. 

ἐς in Christ,” the result of receiving 
Him, 126. 


INDEX. 


‘Walking in wisdom toward them that are 
without ” meaning of, 278. 

Warnings against being misled by false 
teachers, 119. 

Borers of the errorists of Colosse, 

99. 

μ᾿ εἰ of God,” often too much restricted, 

“Wisdom and knowledge,” genuine, re- 
vealed in the gospel, 114. 

—— needed in preaching, 103. 

Wives, duties of, to their husbands, 257. 

“Word of the gospel,” the oral communi- 
cations of the first Christian teachers, 11. 

“World, all the,” meaning of the phrase, 
13. 

“ὁ Worshipping of angels,” origin of the, 185. 

Wrong doing will be requited at the final 
judgment, 266. 


“'___ worthy of the Lord” explained, 25. 


INDEX OF GREEK TERMS MORE 


“Ayi0ss 3, 

᾿Αληθεία εὐαγγελίου, 11. 
᾿Ανταναπληρῶ, 91. 
᾿Απόκρυφος, 115. 
᾿Απαλλοφριόω, 19. 
᾿Αρχή, 04. 


Τνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις, 21, 112, 114, 228. 


Δόγματα, 163. 
Aoypurifo, 193. 


᾿Ε,κών, 48. 

"Ex, 299. 

"EAs, 10. 

"Kyi, 235. 

Ἔν αὐτῳ, Al αὐτοῦ, 55, 56. 
᾿Ἐσιγινώσκω, 15. 


Θέλω, 96. 
‘Iva, 274. 


Κασαβραβένω, 182. 
Κείζω, 62. 


Λόγος, 204. 
Λόγος ἀληθέια:, 11. 


Μέν, 204. 


BELL AND BAIN, PR 


PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO. 
Novberay, Διδάσκων, 102. 


Nabiuara ὑπὶρ ὑμῶν, 85. 
Παραλαμβάνω, 125. 
Παρὼν tis, Παρὼν ἐν, 12. 
Πληρόω, 99. 

Πλήρωμα, 70, 141. 
Προακόνω, 115 
Πρωτότοκος, AT. 


Σοφία, συνέσις, 22, 114. 
Στερέωμα, 123. 
Στοιχεῖον, 138. 
Συλαγωγῶν, 194. 
Συμβιβάξω, 109. 
Sdvdovaos, 17. 

Dope, Σάρξ, 82. 
Sopurinds, 142. 


Τάξις, 122: 


“Tree ὑμῶν διώκονος, 17. 
“Ὑπομονὴ καὶ μακροθυμία, 29. 


Φανερόω, 95. 


] Χειρόγραφον, 162. 


INTERS, GLASGOW. 


Ly a 
iA 
Aas a 
᾿ 
vo " 
ΠΝ 


" 
us 


δὲν 
Sn εν". 


4 
= 


Sar ee 
τῳ pe 


* 


ee ἔ 


+ 


é 


Β52715.Ε11 ε.2 
A commentary on the Greek text of the 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


1 1012 00066 1068 


